avito_map

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 useful behavioral detail beyond that: the no-arg default returns the whole map, and the entity argument scopes results to one entity's methods. This is meaningful context for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 no filler, front-loads the tool's core purpose, and then immediately provides the two invocation patterns. Every sentence earns its place, and the examples are tightly integrated.

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, read-only discovery tool with one optional parameter and an output schema already present, the description covers purpose, usage, default behavior, and parameter semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining the 'entity' parameter. It succeeds by giving example values (reviews, stocks, prices, orders), explaining that omitting it returns the whole map, and defining what the parameter does. This fully compensates for the bare 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 identifies the tool as a high-level discovery index: it shows the business entities the API covers and the go-to methods for each. It explains the two main behaviors (whole map vs. per-entity method list), which distinguishes it from sibling search/describe tools, although it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

It gives explicit invocation guidance: call with no args for the full map, or pass entity='reviews' (etc.) for a single entity's methods. The instruction 'Use this before guessing — it orients you fast' provides a clear when-to-use signal, though it stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when not to use it.

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