avito_get_stocks

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuine value beyond that: the 500-id-per-call limit and the returned field list. It also details the HTTP endpoint, though this is mostly mechanical. There is no contradiction with annotations — the POST verb refers to fetching stock info, consistent with a read operation. It stops short of covering failure modes or what happens when ids exceed the batch limit.

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 five tight fragments front-loaded with purpose, then the endpoint, the 500-id limit, parameter format, and return shape. There is no filler, and each sentence earns its place. The mixed prose/code formatting (Args:/Returns JSON:) is slightly informal but clear and efficient.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, input format, and the batching limit. The presence of an output schema relieves it of explaining the full return envelope, and the readOnlyHint annotation covers safety. Minor omissions — rate limits and invalid-id behavior — are acceptable given the tool's simplicity and available structured metadata.

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 full burden for the single parameter. It fully compensates by stating 'comma-separated Avito listing ids' — a critical formatting detail an agent needs to invoke the call correctly. The batch ceiling (500 ids) also helps an agent shape valid input.

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?

States a specific resource ('Stock per listing') and does a read operation distinct from its write sibling avito_update_stock. It names the endpoint (POST /stock-management/1/info) and the exact data fields returned (quantity, is_unlimited, is_out_of_stock), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool fetches. Among avito siblings (get_items, get_orders, get_stocks) the stock focus is unambiguous.

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 conveys the operational constraint 'Up to 500 ids per call', which implies batching for larger inputs, and the tool's read-only purpose is clear from the name and readOnlyHint. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with alternatives like avito_get_items or avito_update_stock, so an agent must infer when to pick stocks over the other avito listing/stock tools.

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