avito_session_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavior beyond them: no network call, no secret exposed, and no token validation against Avito. That last point is valuable since it tells the agent the status may be stale relative to server state.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the key constraint. No filler, every clause carries distinct 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description covers the safety profile well but never hints at what the returned 'état local de connexion' actually contains (e.g. logged-in flag, account identity, expiry). An agent knows how to call it but not what to expect back.

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, which is the baseline-4 case per the rubric; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate.

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 (Lire) and resource (état local de connexion), and the 'sans appel réseau' qualifier sharply distinguishes it from the sibling network-facing tools like avito_login and avito_get_account. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the local-vs-remote scope makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Implies the use case (checking local session state without a network round-trip) and adds a useful boundary ('ne valide pas le jeton auprès d'Avito'), but never states when to prefer this over avito_login/avito_logout or which conditions call for it.

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