avito_send_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces this with concrete operational caveats beyond the annotations: no bulk sending, no attachments, and a duplicate-avoidance/retry policy that directly explains the non-idempotent risk. That is meaningful context layered 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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct load (action, precondition, exclusions, retry policy), with the primary action front-loaded and the alternative-routing placed mid-message. No filler.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining operational context an agent needs: explicit-user-request precondition, bulk/attachment exclusions, sibling routing, and duplicate-avoidance on failure. Nothing material is missing.

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 both parameters (text, conversationId) are already fully documented in the schema, including the 10,000-char local limit and Avito's possibly lower limit. The description adds no further parameter syntax or format 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Envoie immédiatement le texte fourni dans une conversation Avito existante') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling avito_send_first_message for the no-conversation case. An agent can identify the exact action without opening the schema.

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?

It states when to call ('seulement si l'utilisateur a explicitement demandé cet envoi'), when not to (no mass sending, no attachments), names the alternative (avito_send_first_message), and adds retry guidance (do not auto-retry after error/timeout; verify the conversation first). This is explicit when/when-not/alternative coverage.

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