avito_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: wait_for_text blocks up to 15 s, text is returned in chunks via offset/max_chars, and snapshot yields refs (e1, e2…) for later interactions. However, it never covers viewport_only, nor what happens at end-of-page/chunk boundaries, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for an annotation-free 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?

Three short lines, purpose front-loaded, then mode-specific behavior, each sentence earning its place with no filler. The structure maps cleanly to how an agent would decide between modes.

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 6-parameter, annotation-free read tool with no output schema, the description covers modes, chunking, refs, and the wait timeout, which is close to sufficient. The unexplained viewport_only parameter and the absence of any return-shape or end-of-content note leave it short of fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain five of six parameters meaningfully (mode semantics, offset/max_chars chunking, selector as a CSS scope, wait_for_text with its timeout). Only viewport_only is left completely undefined, which is the one gap in otherwise strong parameter documentation.

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+resource ('Читает текущую страницу') and clearly distinguishes its two output modes, text vs snapshot. It even names the downstream consumers (avito_click, avito_type) of the snapshot refs, which helps an agent place it in the workflow. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself against non-read siblings like avito_screenshot.

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 explains when each mode applies (visible text vs interactive refs) and when wait_for_text is needed (sections that load after opening), which is real invocation guidance. It stops short of saying when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as avito_screenshot or avito_status.

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