avito_list_sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the useful detail that the output includes counts of catalog endpoints per section, which is not visible in the schema. However, it doesn't describe the return format or whether the list is exhaustive, but with annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, and the key information (what is listed and what counts are included) is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what it will get (sections and endpoint counts). It doesn't mention pagination or whether the list is sorted, but those are minor for a discovery tool. The output schema likely covers return structure, so nothing critical is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The schema is trivially complete (100% coverage with no properties). The description adds meaning about what the response contains (section names and endpoint counts), which is the only semantic content needed. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('API sections'), and adds the detail that it returns the count of catalog endpoints per section. This is clear and distinguishes it from tools like avito_get_section, which retrieves a single section's details. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the scope is specific enough.

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 implies this is the discovery/overview tool for API sections, and the sibling list shows many similar list_sections tools for other marketplaces (ozon_list_sections, wb_list_sections, ym_list_sections). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over avito_get_section or avito_search_methods, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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