avito_list_workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=false (known result set), so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds useful behavioral context: the return format (JSON with fields name, category, when_to_use) and the pointer to get_workflow for detailed steps. This adds value beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core action, specifies the output format, and immediately points to the companion tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The output schema exists (provided as true), so the description need not elaborate further on return values. The description covers the tool's purpose, return format, and how to proceed for more detail. Complete for a no-parameter listing tool; the only minor gap is not explaining 'recipes' in depth, but the context makes it clear.

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 tool has zero parametersholistic, so parameter semantics is largely irrelevant. The description focuses on the output structure (name, category, when_to_use), which is more relevant here. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately avoids misleading parameter information.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('ready-made analytical workflows (recipes) for this marketplace'), and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the companion tool 'avito_get_workflow' for fetching full details. This distinguishes it from the many other 'list_workflows' siblings by the 'avito' context.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use {svc}_get_workflow to fetch the full plan for one workflow, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but for a list operation, the primary alternative is the get_workflow, which is named. This is clear enough for a no-parameter tool.

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