avito_get_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds that it returns a JSON list of endpoint metadata (operation_id, method, path, safety, summary), which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not disclose pagination, error behavior, or whether the section must exist, but given the read-only annotation, a 3 is appropriate.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and resource, followed by a concise Args/Returns breakdown. Every sentence earns its place, though the Returns line is somewhat redundant with the output schema.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the parameter source and return shape. However, it does not clarify what happens for an invalid/unknown section, whether the list is sorted, or how this relates to sibling discovery tools like avito_search_methods and avito_map.

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 must compensate. It does explain that 'section' is a section name and references {svc}_list_sections for valid values, with an example. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema property, but it is terse and does not enumerate possible sections or format constraints.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all endpoints in one section'), and clarifies the output format. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like avito_list_sections (which lists sections) and avito_describe_method (which describes a single method), though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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: call it with a section name obtained from {svc}_list_sections. It gives an example section ('statistics') and notes the return type, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over avito_search_methods, avito_map, or avito_describe_method, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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