avito_search_methods

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds useful behavior by noting that it returns a JSON list of matching endpoints sorted best-firsttw. It does not mention rate limits or errors, but those are less critical for a read-only search tool.

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 concise, well organized, and free of unnecessary detail. The purpose is stated first, arguments are clearly labeled, and examples are directly useful.

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 description covers the core invocation details: keyword search, multilingual support, limit, and result format. It could be slightly stronger by directing users to map or describe_method for browsing or details, but nothing essential is missing for a read-only search tool.

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 description adds real value beyond the schema: it explains that query is free text, gives Russian and English examples, and clarifies the limit range. Both parameters are covered with enough context for an agent to use them correctly.

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 searches the endpoint catalog by keyword grados and explicitly mentions Russian and English support. This distinguishes it from execution tools like avito_update_price and from other platform-specific search tools.

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 gives practical usage details with query examples and a limit parameter, but it does not explain when to prefer this tool over related tools such as avito_map or avito_describe_method. The intended use is implied, not explicit.

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