avito_profiles

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 does disclose useful behavior — the source of the list (avatar menu) and that the first entry is the active profile — and implies a read-only listing, but never states that it makes no changes, nor anything about failure modes or return format.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the ordering fact, then the alternative. No filler and nothing buried.

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 parameter-less read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the meaningful ordering property, which is enough to call it correctly. Slightly richer detail (e.g. whether names/identifiers come back) would make it fully self-sufficient.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100% on an empty property set), so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies; nothing is missing that the description could reasonably add.

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 the concrete resource (account profiles taken from the avatar menu), enumerates their kinds (regular, Pro, etc.), and explicitly disambiguates from the sibling avito_switch_profile, which handles switching. An agent can pick between the two without opening a schema.

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 final clause routes the agent to avito_switch_profile for the switching action, which is clear contextual guidance. It stops short of an explicit 'when to use this instead' statement for read/refresh scenarios, but the boundary is unambiguous.

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