Similar ads

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

Annotations already establish safe/idempotent read semantics, and the description goes well beyond them: the four-level breadcrumb widening order, narrowest-first sorting, newest-first ordering, and concrete outlier exclusion thresholds for property (5x price, 0.4x/2.5x area) with the resulting `excluded_outliers` count. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent cannot 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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct fact (search strategy, sort order, exclusion rules, next tools). It runs long and includes an illustrative parenthetical, but no sentence is pure filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names `basis` and `excluded_outliers` and states the sort order. Combined with the disclosed filtering rules, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretive meaning the schema lacks: 'widening step by step' clarifies what `pages` (pages scanned per breadcrumb level) actually traverses, and the breadcrumb level list explains what the returned `basis` refers to.

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 precise verb+resource ('Ads similar to one ad') plus the matching logic (same brand/model or category + neighbourhood) and the widening fallback. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like dv_nearby or dv_search without opening any 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?

Explains the algorithmic context ('Divar has no similar-ads endpoint; this searches the ad's own breadcrumb') and names the follow-on tools (dv_compare, dv_appraise). It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer this over other discovery siblings such as dv_nearby or dv_find_deals.

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