avito_get_ad_for_edit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with 'Ne modifie pas l'annonce' and discloses what data the call returns, adding modest value on top of the structured hints.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded and the non-mutation guarantee placed last. The field enumeration is long but informative; nothing is wasted.

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 usefully lists the returned edit fields, compensating for the missing return contract. Annotations cover the safety side, so an agent has enough to call it correctly, though sibling differentiation remains absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the sole adId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its distinction from the public listId. The description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline 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 (lire) and resource (champs d'édition d'une annonce du compte), then enumerates the returned fields. It implies the edit-oriented use case, though it never names how it differs from close siblings like avito_get_my_ad or avito_get_published_ad.

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 phrase 'champs d'édition' implies the tool belongs to an edit workflow, giving an implicit usage context. However there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no alternative named among the many getter siblings.

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