divar_post_filters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Show' reasonably implies a read-only operation, and the filter examples give some sense of the output, but the description does not disclose response format, optional-parameter behavior, or any limitations. It is adequate but not rich.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element—the action, resource, and representative filter examples—earns its place.

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 simple introspection tool with two optional, well-described parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns at a conceptual level. It could specify behavior when no city/category is provided, but this is a minor gap.

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%, and the schema already explains 'city' and 'category' clearly with examples. The description mentions 'city/category' in passing but adds no new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('which filters divar.ir exposes'), with concrete examples (price range, districts, photo-only). It clearly identifies a filtering/introspection purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like divar_search or divar_search_url.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there exclusions or prerequisites. The description states the parameters (city/category) but does not say what happens when they are omitted or how this tool relates to the sibling tools.

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