avito_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that it 'returns page state' (Возвращает состояние страницы), but says nothing about load-waiting, navigation failures, redirects, or whether existing page state is preserved. That is thin for a navigation tool.

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 action and resource, then the input format and return value. Nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter navigation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, input format, and a rough return. Only navigation/waiting behavior is left unspecified.

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 schema only labels the field 'Url', so the description adds real value by specifying it accepts a full address or a path like '/profile'. This meaningfully compensates for the empty schema description.

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 gives a specific verb ('Открывает' / opens) and resource ('страницу avito.ru'), and the path example clarifies the navigation scope. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like avito_click or avito_press, though it does not name 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?

Usage is implied — you open a page to begin interacting with it — but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as avito_back or avito_search. No prerequisites or conditions are given.

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