avito_get_item_stats

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which already signal a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds valuable constraints: max 200 ids, 270-day lookback, and return format. This exceeds the baseline by providing concrete operational limits and output structure, which is helpful for an agent to anticipate API limitations.

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 compact, starting with a one-line summary, then the endpoint, constraints, and parameter details in a clear list. Each sentence adds value—no filler. The front-loading of the purpose and endpoint makes it easy to quickly grasp the tool's role.

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 having no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description fully covers all four parameters and the return format. The output schema exists but is not provided in the prompt; however, the description already explains the return JSON structure, making the tool fully usable. Given its moderate complexity, nothing is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It does so effectively: item_ids is described as comma-separated listing IDs, date_from/to are YYYY-MM-DD inclusive, and period_grouping is enumerated with options. The description even explains the output structure, providing full semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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: retrieving views/contacts/favorites per listing per period. It specifies the API endpoint and parameter details, distinguishing it from sibling tools like avito_get_stocks or avito_get_items. The focus on stats metrics makes its unique function obvious.

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 retrieving performance metrics but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like avito_get_items (which likely returns all item details). It provides constraints (up to 200 ids, 270 days) but lacks guidance on exclusions or prerequisites. This is adequate but not explicit.

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