Поиск объявлений

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple summary by revealing critical behavior: partial results requiring returned/total comparison, prices returned in GEL/USD/EUR, the distinction between age_days/published and updated, and applied_filters as an API echo. These are non-obvious traits that materially affect how the agent interprets results.

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 every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds high-value caveats about partial results, currency behavior, date semantics, and API echo. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 a tool with 40 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers the essential response caveats and field semantics. However, it does not describe the overall response shape or pagination mechanics beyond the returned/total hint, and it leaves the agent to discover any additional output fields from actual usage.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add much about individual input parameters, but it does clarify related output semantics such as age_days, updated, and applied_filters. The schema already documents all 40 parameters well, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 the verb and resource: 'Ищет объявления на livo.ge' (searches listings on livo.ge). It is specific enough to understand the tool's core action, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like listing or count.

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 says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to prefer search over alternatives such as listing, count, or geo. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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