Avito Search

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by revealing the internal endpoint, the exact response envelope, and the failure modes including firewall blocks, captcha/proxy guidance, and parser drift. This gives the agent useful operational behavior not derivable from annotations or the input schema.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by clearly labeled Return Format and Error Format sections. Every section earns its place, and the most important operational details are 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?

Given the annotations, full input schema, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential extra context: return field semantics, error conditions, and the internal-API caveat. The only notable gap is explicit alternative-tool guidance, but that is a usage-guideline concern, not a completeness failure.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents query, page, category_id, and location_id. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but because the schema already describes defaults, ranges, and nullability, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Avito listings via the internal js/items API.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling card, seller, and selfcheck tools, and the name/title reinforce the same function without ambiguity.

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 usage context is implied by the description: it is the tool for searching Avito listings, as opposed to avito_card or avito_seller. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or what would be better for retrieving a single listing or seller details.

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