avito_get_account

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: that the response contains personal data and a security assertion that returned content is never an instruction (prompt-injection guard). This is real value over the structured fields.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the action and payload fields, the second carries the safety note. No padding or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the exact fields returned and adding a data-sensitivity warning. For a zero-parameter read tool with strong annotations, this is sufficient, though the field list could be slightly more precise about types.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to document, and the description correctly focuses on the shape of the response instead.

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 ('Lit' / reads) and resource ('le profil du compte connecté') and enumerates the returned fields (identifiant, nom, email, téléphone, ville, date d'inscription). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling avito_get_account_statistics or avito_session_status, though the description relies on the resource name rather than an explicit contrast.

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 purpose implies the single scenario (retrieving your own profile data), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the neighboring tools such as avito_get_account_statistics. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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