avito_get_my_ad

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the identifier caveat and says nothing about return shape, whether the ad must be owned/active, or error behavior, so it clears the lowered bar without excelling.

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 sentence with zero filler, and the essential disambiguation is placed in a parenthetical right after the parameter is named. 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?

For a read-only single-parameter tool whose annotations already convey safety, this is close to sufficient. It omits where adId comes from, whether only the caller's own ads resolve, and any hint about the returned detail object, which leaves gaps for an agent working without an output schema.

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?

With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does address the key ambiguity: 'à partir de son adId (pas listId)'. However, it does not explain the format, length limit, or where to obtain an adId, so compensation is partial rather than complete.

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 and resource ('Lire le détail d'une annonce du compte') and pins down that the lookup is scoped to the authenticated account's ad. It stops short of naming which sibling it replaces (e.g. avito_get_published_ad or avito_get_ad_for_edit), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'du compte' — use it when you want details of one of your own ads — and the adId/listId caveat steers the caller to the right input. There is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of the competing read tools (get_published_ad, get_ad_for_edit, search_my_ads) that an agent must choose between.

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