avito_get_items

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

The annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not required to repeat that it is a read-only operation. However, the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the rate limit (25 requests/min), the return structure (JSON with ok/meta/resources), and the pagination semantics (1-based page, per_page <100). It does not disclose potential errors or quota exhaustion details, but the rate limit itself is a significant disclosure. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but efficient: it includes the HTTP endpoint, rate limit, parameter list, return format, and a note about pagination. The text is front-loaded with the primary purpose and key constraints. However, the parameter list is embedded in bullet-less text, which could be more structured for easier parsing, but it is still readable and not overly verbose.

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's complexity: 5 parameters, no required parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema that is not shown in detail, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to call the tool correctly. It covers all parameters, provides example values for status, explains the return structure, and notes the rate limit. However, it does not document the output schema's nested 'resources' array or potential error codes, which would be helpful. The output schema exists in the context, so the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it does briefly. Overall, it is mostly complete for making a correct call.

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 parameter names, types, defaults, but no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description is responsible for explaining parameter meaning. The description clarifies 'status' values (active, removed, old, blocked, rejected), 'category' as Avito category ID with 0=all, and 'updated_from' as YYYY-MM-DD lower bound. However, it does not explain the 'page' and 'per_page' semantics beyond noting page is 1-based and per_page <100, which is covered. The description does not fully compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions for all params, but it covers most critical details.

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 lists the seller's listings (объявления) with status, category, and URL, and includes the HTTP endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like avito_get_stocks or avito_get_orders, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 provides explicit usage context: it lists filter parameters (status, category, updated_from) and pagination (page, per_page), and it specifies the rate limit of 25 requests/min. It also directs the agent to use avito_fetch_all for retrieving all pages, which serves as a clear when-to-use alternative, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool beyond that.

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