Поиск объявлений

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that output is partial and that mode='fast' yields published=null meaning 'unknown, not fresh' – valuable warnings. However, it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure modes, which is a real gap for a 15-param scraping tool.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and immediately followed by the two most consequential caveats (partial results, unknown dates). No filler, though the embedded guidance is packed tightly.

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?

With 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description must work hard, and it covers the most dangerous behavioral traps (partial results, null dates, dual currency). It still omits the shape of the returned objects and any per-mode limits, leaving the agent to infer return structure.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine interpretation: mode='fast' returns published=null and that null must not be read as freshness, plus the fact that prices come back in both USD and GEL. That is meaning beyond the schema text.

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+resource: searches listings on home.ss.ge. It even hints at the relationship to the count tool ('сравнивай returned со счётчиком cards'). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like listing or geo, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives useful guidance on the paged-vs-fast tradeoff and instructs the agent to compare the returned count against the cards counter, but never says when to pick this tool over listing, count, or geo. The only explicit routing is parameter-level, not tool-level.

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