avito_fetch_all

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: cursor fields are managed, max_items caps context, and results may be truncated. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects beyond what annotations alone provide, with no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses a compact Args block to define parameters. It is somewhat verbose but every line adds necessary details for this multi-parameter tool, with no filler.

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?

Despite the lack of schema descriptions, the description provides enough operational context to correctly use the tool: supported pagination styles, the return payload keys, the cap on items, and the cancellation via operation_id. It could additionally explain how to discover valid operation_ids from the catalog, though this is arguably covered by sibling catalog/describe tools.

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 carries the explanatory burden. It gives useful meaning to every parameter, especially items_path, limit, max_items, and the managed pagination fields. It could still clarify value formats for items_path and how path placeholder substitutions are handled, which keeps it from a 5.

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 first sentence states a specific behavior: auto-paginate a read endpoint and return every row in one response. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling call/raw/get tools, which handle single requests or specific data types rather than full pagination.

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 a read endpoint is paginated and all rows are needed. However, it never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives like avito_call_method or the more specific avito_get_items/get_orders tools, so the agent must infer substitution logic.

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