run_avito_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates the returned payload (price in RUB, coordinates, view counts, seller) and discloses a cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run'). It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only fetch the field list plus cost note is strong disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a compact enumeration of returned fields and a one-clause cost note. The field list is long but each item is meaningful, and there is no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return values, and it does so thoroughly via the field enumeration. Missing only usage routing and any note on failure modes for invalid ids, which are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% and the single 'item' param already documents 'Listing ID or URL. e.g. 8132133298'. The description's 'by id or URL' merely echoes the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a full Avito listing) and pins the input mode ('by id or URL'). The phrase 'full listing' implicitly distinguishes it from run_avito_items_search, which returns lists rather than one detailed item.

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?

'By id or URL' implies the tool needs a concrete identifier, which is useful context, but the description never states when to prefer it over run_avito_items_search or where those ids come from. Usage is inferred rather than spelled out, and no exclusions are given.

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