avito_whoami

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the returned fields, the JSON wrapper, and the credential-verification purpose. It does not describe error behavior for invalid credentials, but this is a low-risk read endpoint.

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 compact sentences lead with the key output, explain why the id matters, and include the return shape. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 identity tool, the description covers selection and invocation: what it returns, why the id matters, and how it can verify auth. The output schema covers remaining return details.

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?

There are no parameters and the input schema is empty, so the description has nothing to add. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate here.

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 names the resource (authorized Avito account) and the exact fields returned, and it notes the id's downstream role as user_id. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' and slightly overlaps with the avito_check_auth sibling, so it is not 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 gives two concrete use cases: obtaining the user_id needed by other methods and cheaply verifying credentials. It does not name exclusions or explicitly contrast itself with avito_check_auth, but the intended context is clear.

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