avito_prepare_boost

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the quote expires in five minutes and no purchase occurs, which explains why idempotentHint=false. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure not present in 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, front-loaded with the purpose ('Préparer un devis... sans achat') followed by the presentation instruction. Every clause carries weight with no filler, though the second sentence slightly compresses what could be procedural detail.

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 prepare-step tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose, the temporal constraint, and what data to surface to the user (the quote contents). It does not explain the full response structure or the exact handoff to execute_boost, leaving a minor gap for a workflow-position tool.

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 75% (adId, packId, executionSlotId documented in the schema). The description lists items to present (annonce, pack, prix, unité, créneau) but does not map these to parameter inputs or clarify executionDay, which is required yet undocumented in both places. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Préparer un devis de boost') and adds a key scope qualifier ('sans achat' / valable cinq minutes) that separates it from the actual purchase flow. It does not explicitly name the sibling avito_execute_boost, but the 'no purchase' framing implies the distinction clearly enough.

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 second sentence implies a workflow: present the quote to the user to obtain confirmation, which implies this is a pre-step before executing. However, it never names avito_execute_boost or avito_get_boost_packages explicitly, nor states when NOT to use this. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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