run_avito_items_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the returned fields (title, price, location, coordinates, image, seller) and the cost model ('1 point per returned record'). It omits auth/permission requirements and rate/limit behavior, but the return and cost disclosure is meaningful context.

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?

Three tight sentences, no filler: purpose + filters, then return fields, then cost. The most decision-relevant information (keyword search, filters) is front-loaded.

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 usefully enumerates return fields and the point cost. Pagination semantics (start_page/max_items behavior, whether pages are 1-indexed and how many results per page) are not explained, which is a minor remaining gap for a paginated 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters with enums and examples. The description lists the same filter categories (region, category, price range, sort, seller type, delivery, attributes) without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Search Avito listings by keyword') and enumerates the filter dimensions it supports. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like run_avito_sellers or run_avito_categories by the keyword-search framing.

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 list of filters implies the tool's intended use, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as run_avito_items (item detail) or run_avito_categories. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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