Autoload: upload charges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that the tool is read-only and includes pagination with meta total/pages, which provides minor additional behavioral context beyond annotations, but does not significantly expand on what is already implicit.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first explains the output, the second provides usage guidance. It is succinct, front-loads the key information, and contains no redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the returned fields and pagination details. It also references the sibling tool for alternative use cases. With 5 parameters fully described in the schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds context about the output fields (e.g., charge type explained as single/package), but this does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns placement charges for each listing in a specific upload, listing the returned fields (ad_id, avito_id, charge type, amount/package ID). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool autoload_get_report_items_by_id by specifying that this tool is for cost breakdown, not for listing processing/statuses.

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 description explicitly tells when to use this tool ('break down the cost of an upload') and when not to ('for listing processing/statuses use autoload_get_report_items_by_id'). It also mentions how to obtain the required report_id (via autoload_get_reports_v2), providing clear guidance.

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