Список объявлений

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and open world. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: a specific rate limit (25 req/min) and the behavior for employee ads (returns empty list). No contradictions.

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 concise with only a few sentences, each adding specific value (purpose, limit, edge case, pagination). It is front-loaded with the main action. No filler or redundancy.

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, the description partially compensates by listing returned fields (status, category, link). However, it does not describe the response structure (e.g., array or pagination metadata). The rate limit and employee ad edge case are good additions, but gaps remain for a fully complete picture.

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 100% with all parameters described in detail. The description mentions pagination (page+per_page) but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. Given the baseline of 3 for high coverage, this 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?

Description clearly states the tool lists ads of the authorized user with status, category, and link. It mentions pagination and a rate limit. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'items_get_item_info', which likely returns details for a single ad, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 provides usage context: to list the user's ads, notes a rate limit, and an edge case (employee ads return empty list). However, it does not explicitly specify when to avoid using this tool or name alternatives, relying on implicit understanding.

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