avito_map

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

The readOnlyHint is already present, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: calling with no arguments returns the whole map, and passing an entity lists every method of that entity. It makes the boundary of the tool's behavior clear without repeating the annotation content.

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 tight and front-loaded: one sentence states purpose, the second gives exact call modes, and the third gives practical guidance. No sentence is redundant; the playfully unquoted 'you are here' helps orient the agent without bloating the text.

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?

Given a simple one-parameter optional schema, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to know to start using the tool correctly. It also teaches the higher-level strategy of using the map before searching, which is useful context.

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 carries the parameter documentation load. It clarifies that entity is optional, gives the no-argument default behavior, and provides concrete example values like 'reviews' and 'stocks'. A fully exhaustive list of accepted entity values would have earned a 5.

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 map of business entities and their go-to methods, and explicitly distinguishes the two invocation modes: no arguments for the whole map, or an entity name to list methods for that entity. It names the resource and behavior in a way an agent can use without opening the schema.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance by saying 'Use this before guessing' and explains exactly when to pass the entity argument. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as using avito_search_methods or avito_describe_method when more detail is needed, which keeps it from a 5.

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