avito_listing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implicitly signals a read/extraction operation and discloses the current-page default, which is genuinely useful. It stops short of stating read-only safety, behavior on non-listing pages, or how extraction failures surface.

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 extracted-field list followed by the default-page rule. No filler, though the long enumeration could read as a list rather than prose.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the enumerated field list effectively doubles as a return-value description, which is what an agent needs. The main omission is any guidance on when this tool beats the neighboring read/navigation tools.

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 0% and the single 'url' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. 'Без url — текущая страница' fully explains the parameter's nullable default semantics, which is exactly the missing information.

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 (разбирает/parses) and resource (объявление/listing) and enumerates the exact fields extracted (заголовок, цена, прайс, описание, адрес, просмотры, продавец, бейджи, ссылки на фото). This clearly separates it from the generic avito_read sibling, though it never names that sibling 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?

The clause 'Без url — текущая страница' gives a useful usage hint about default behavior when no URL is passed. However, it never says when to prefer this over avito_read, avito_search, or avito_open, so the agent must infer the routing from the field list alone.

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