avito_search_methods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it works in both Russian and English, and returns results 'best first'. These traits are not in the annotations and help the agent set expectations. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a simple search over a catalog this is acceptable given the read-only guarantee.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured. It opens with a single-sentence summary that front-loads the purpose, followed by a compact 'Args' section that explains both parameters in minimal lines. It ends with a clear 'Returns' statement. There is no redundancy or fluff—every sentence earns its place, and the formatting is easy to parse.

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 read-only search tool with only two parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, return format, and language support. Since an output schema exists (indicated by the context signal), the description does not need to enumerate fields. The description provides enough for an agent to call the tool correctly without further information.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: for 'query' it specifies 'free text' and gives concrete examples ('остатки', 'stocks', 'update price'), and for 'limit' it states 'max results (1-50)'. This goes beyond the schema's type and default, providing meaning, constraints, and examples that an agent can use directly. This is exactly what a good description should do when the schema is bare.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search the endpoint catalog by keyword' – a specific verb (search) with a distinct resource (endpoint catalog). It also highlights bilingual support (Russian and English), which helps separate it from most sibling tools that operate on specific endpoints or sections. The presence of sibling tools like avito_list_sections and avito_describe_method makes the differentiation meaningful; this tool is for searching the catalog, not listing or describing a single item.

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 when to use the tool: when an agent needs to find an endpoint by keyword, possibly across many catalogs. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., for listing all sections or workflows). However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the right context. A brief mention of alternatives would push this to a 5, but it's not necessary for a search tool.

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