Карточка объявления

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait: the publication date is absent because the API does not return it in this response, and bumped/expires refer only to paid placement. However, it says nothing about permissions, error behavior for an invalid id, or how currency affects the response.

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?

One dense sentence listing the returned fields, followed by a sharply scoped caveat about the missing publication date. Every clause carries information and the caveat is clearly separated, though the field enumeration is a little packed.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does well to preview the returned fields and to preempt a likely question about the publication date and paid-placement fields. It stops short of covering failure modes or the effect of the currency parameter.

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 both parameters and the currency enum are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no syntax, format, or behavioral detail about application_id or currency beyond what the schema states.

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 names a specific resource (the full listing card) and enumerates the fields it carries — amenities, coordinates, floors, renovation state, cadastral code, views, contact. An agent can tell it is a detail-retrieval tool rather than a search/count tool, though it never states a verb or explicitly contrasts with the sibling 'search'.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The link back to 'search' exists only in the schema ('поле id из search'), and the description never says to use this after search or instead of any sibling. Usage is only implied.

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