avito_get_raw

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

The annotations already mark readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: default method is GET, host can be overridden, body is rare but possible on reads, and the response shape is disclosed. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 well-structured, front-loads the core behavior, and every sentence adds useful information. The argument list is terse but complete, with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 an open-world raw API tool with five parameters and no endpoint enums, the description provides everything an agent needs: target API reference, method constraints, parameter details, and return envelope. The output behavior is also covered despite the presence of an output schema.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: path format with example, method defaults, host override behavior, query-string parameters, and body semantics. This is exactly the kind of parameter documentation the schema lacks.

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 action and resource: 'Read ANY endpoint by path, including ones missing from the catalog.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like avito_write_raw and avito_delete_raw by explicitly restricting to safe verbs.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: read operations via any endpoint, and directs the agent to 'avito_write_raw' for changes and 'avito_delete_raw' for deletions. It also limits usage to GET, HEAD, and OPTIONS, leaving no ambiguity about safe invocation.

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