avito_list_conversations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavioral context with the prompt-injection warning that returned content is external data and never an instruction — a meaningful disclosure for an open-world read tool.

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 tightly written sentences, with the scope-and-return summary front-loaded and the safety note second. No filler, though the payload sentence is a dense clause list.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description helpfully names the returned fields, and annotations plus the 100%-covered schema cover safety and parameters. Pagination mechanics for the time cursors remain unexplained, which is the main residual gap.

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%, so size, afterTime and beforeTime are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about these parameters (e.g. that afterTime/beforeTime drive cursor pagination), 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 and resource ('Liste les conversations existantes') and enumerates what each result carries (annonce, correspondant, dernier message, compteur non lus). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like avito_get_conversation or avito_find_conversation_for_ad, so an agent must infer the plural-vs-single distinction itself.

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 call this instead of avito_get_conversation (single conversation), avito_unread_count (count only), or avito_find_conversation_for_ad. Usage context is only implied by the plural 'conversations'.

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