avito_hover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the behavioral consequence (dropdowns appear) and that ref comes from a snapshot, but says nothing about failure modes, whether the element must be visible, or any wait/hover-duration semantics.

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?

One tightly packed sentence: the action, the parameter source, and the payoff case are all front-loaded with zero waste.

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 simple one-param action tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the parameter's origin, and the typical use case. Only edge-case behavior (missing element, timing) is absent, which is minor here.

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 0% and the single 'ref' param has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does partly by identifying ref as coming from the snapshot, but adds no format, syntax, or example for the ref value.

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 and resource ('наводит курсор на элемент') and even cites the parameter's origin ('ref из snapshot'). It reads clearly as distinct from the click/press siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: hover is how dropdown menus get opened, with the profile menu as an example. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives against siblings like avito_click, so it stops short of a 5.

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