avito_call_raw

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

The description explains that safety is inferred from the HTTP verb (GET=read, POST/PUT/PATCH=write, DELETE=destructive) and mentions confirmation rules, which adds value beyond the annotations. The annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description details the verb-based safety inference and confirmation parameters, which is useful. However, it doesn't detail potential side effects beyond modification, like rate limiting or irreversible changes, but the confirmation mechanism is a strong addition.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a safety note, a parameter list in bullet format, and a return value description. Each sentence serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is slightly verbose in listing every parameter, but this is necessary for a raw call tool. Overall, it is efficient and clear.

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?

Given the complexity of a raw API caller with 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how safety is determined, confirmation requirements, parameter semantics, and return format. The output schema exists, so return details are not repeated. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 schema provides minimal descriptions for the parameters, with 0% coverage. The description compensates significantly by explaining each parameter's role (e.g., method as HTTP verb, path as full path, host as override, query and body as request components) and the confirmation flags. This is much more informative than the bare schema, earning a high score despite the lack of schema descriptions.

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: to execute ANY endpoint, even those not in the catalog, providing full API coverage. It specifies the verb (execute), resource (endpoint), and scope (any), distinguishing it from sibling tools that are catalog-specific, such as avito_call_method or avito_describe_method.

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 usage for endpoints not covered by catalog tools and indicates when to use it (when you need full API coverage). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when NOT to use it, but the context of 'ANY endpoint' and the existence of catalog methods suggests it is for cases beyond those. It could be improved by explicitly stating to prefer catalog methods when available.

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