avito_fetch_all

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: it reveals automatic pagination across multiple cursor styles, automatic array-path discovery, cursor-field management, a max_items context-protection cap, and a structured return envelope including a truncated flag. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then uses a compact, scannable Args block with no filler. Every sentence earns its place by adding operational or return-value detail.

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 generic pagination tool with seven parameters and no schema-description coverage, the description is complete: it covers input semantics, pagination styles, defaults, output shape, and the truncation safeguard. The presence of an output schema also means return-value details need not be repeated in full.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates: operation_id is defined as a read endpoint from the catalog, query/body/path_values are described as base parameters with cursor fields managed, items_path is an override, limit sets page size, and max_items is a hard cap. Every one of the seven parameters receives meaningful semantic explanation beyond its schema type.

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 opening sentence, 'Auto-paginate a read endpoint and return every row in one response,' names a specific verb, a resource, and the distinguishing behavior of returning all rows. The mention of supporting offset, last_id, cursor, page, and lastChangeDate styles further separates it from single-page sibling getters like avito_get_items and avito_get_orders.

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 makes the use case clear: this is for fetching complete result sets from read endpoints, with pagination cursor fields managed automatically. It does not explicitly name single-page alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is strong and not misleading.

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