avito_find_conversation_for_ad

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety bar is lower; the description still adds value by disclosing that the lookup is scoped to the connected account and that it will not open/create a conversation as a side effect. It also names the response fields (found, conversationId), which annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core identity of the operation front-loaded and the negative behavior stated second. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the two returned fields; the auth scope and the no-open side effect are both covered. The only minor gap is what 'found' false implies (no existing conversation) and any prerequisite that the ad belong to the caller.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the adId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the warning not to use listId. The description only restates 'via son adId' without adding format, source, or failure-behavior detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (retrouve/find), resource (conversation), and scope (of the connected account, linked to an ad via adId), so an agent knows this is a targeted lookup rather than a general conversation read. It does not explicitly name which sibling it differs from (e.g. avito_get_conversation or avito_list_conversations), which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The clause 'cette lecture n'ouvre pas de conversation' gives a useful when-not signal (do not call this to start a thread), and 'via son adId' implies the precondition of having an ad identifier. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit guidance on choosing this over avito_get_conversation or avito_send_first_message.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.