Ad details

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

Annotations only cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds real behavioral facts beyond that: lat/lon are fuzzed ~500 m, no phone number is exposed because Divar hides it from anonymous users, `suspect_price` marks placeholder prices, and `rent 0 + full_deposit` means رهن کامل. These are non-obvious data-shape and visibility constraints an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line scope statement, then grouped into price semantics, location/feature semantics, the contact limitation, and next-tool routing. It is dense with backticked field names but every clause carries information; a slightly tighter price sentence would earn a 5.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return payload, and it does: price/deposit/rent, specs, images, fuzzed coordinates, and the missing phone field. Nothing an agent needs to interpret or act on the response is absent.

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 `token`, `full_text`, and `max_images` are already fully documented in the schema (including the 1500-char truncation default). The description's backticked terms (`price`, `deposit`, `rent`, `negotiable`) describe return fields, not input parameters, so it adds little beyond the baseline for this dimension.

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 resource and scope: 'Everything public about one ad', immediately establishing this as the single-ad detail fetch. The phrase 'one ad' implicitly contrasts with the list/search siblings (dv_posts, dv_search) without the agent needing to open another schema.

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?

Ends with explicit routing: 'Next: dv_similar, dv_appraise (is the price fair), dv_seller, dv_compare', and notes to use `url` for seller contact since no phone is returned. It gives clear follow-on context but no explicit when-not-to-use condition (e.g. 'use dv_posts for batches').

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