avito_get_low_performing_ads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the useful nuance that the 'low performing' classification is Avito's, not a locally computed threshold; it says nothing about scope, freshness or return shape. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the resource stated up front. It is efficient, though the brevity is arguably under-specification rather than deliberate trimming.

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 and no parameters, the description is the only source of information about results, yet it does not explain what 'low performing' means, over what window, or what the response contains. It is minimally adequate for a zero-arg read tool but leaves clear gaps.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No filters (date range, account, pagination) are mentioned, but none exist in the schema either.

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?

The description gives a clear verb ('Lire') and a specific resource ('annonces identifiées par Avito comme peu performantes'), so the agent knows this returns a curated set of underperforming ads rather than performing a search. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many other read-oriented siblings such as avito_get_my_ads_facets or avito_search_my_ads.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the numerous other ad-listing tools in the sibling set, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is a diagnostics-style read from the name alone.

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