Send message to Avito seller

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states the auth prerequisite, which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about failure modes when not logged in, rate limits, whether the send is idempotent, or what the call returns on success or error.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite immediately following. No filler or redundancy.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more than purpose plus an auth note; the description omits post-send behavior and error handling. For a two-parameter tool with fully documented schema it is adequate but leaves behavioral gaps.

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 100%, so both parameters including the item-URL-or-chat-URL flexibility are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Send a message to a seller on Avito') and its intent ('to negotiate or ask questions'), which is clearly distinct from the read-oriented siblings like avito_get_chat_history and avito_list_chats. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it lands at a solid 4 rather than a 5.

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?

It provides a reason to use the tool ('negotiate or ask questions') and a critical prerequisite ('Requires prior login via npm run login'), but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over checking existing chats first or what conditions should block use. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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