avito_check_auth

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explicitly states the tool does NOT reveal secret values, only reports which variables are set. It also discloses the exact return shape (JSON with ready, missing, required). This is strong transparency for a read-only check tool, though it could mention whether it validates value format or just presence.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a JSON return format. Every sentence earns its place. The key behavioral constraint (does NOT reveal secrets) is front-loaded, and the return format is clearly specified. No wasted words.

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 tool has zero parameters and a clear output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and return format. The only minor gap is not listing the specific environment variable names, which would help an agent know what 'required' means in practice. However, the output schema and simplicity of the tool make this a minor omission.

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 the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description compensates by explaining what the tool reports (which variables are set, missing, required) and the return format. This is sufficient for a no-parameter tool, though it could list the exact environment variable names expected.

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: checking whether required credentials are present in the environment. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('credentials'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from credential-revealing operations by stating it does NOT reveal secret values. This is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 this tool: before operations requiring credentials, to verify readiness. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., avito_whoami, avito_use_cabinet) and the clear 'check' purpose provide sufficient guidance. A slight gap is the lack of explicit 'use this when...' phrasing.

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