divar_search_url

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool builds a URL, which implies a pure construction task, but it does not explicitly confirm there are no network side effects, what the return value looks like, or how invalid parameters are handled. This leaves the agent with uncertainty about the tool's actual behavior.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action ('Build a divar.ir web URL') and then stating the human-use purpose. Every word earns its place; it is as concise as possible.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (a URL constructor with 5 optional parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core purpose. It does not detail return format or error behavior, but for this simple utility the description is sufficient for an agent to correctly understand the tool's role. The missing annotation coverage keeps it from a 5.

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 80%, so the input schema already documents most parameters (city, category, price units). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but per the rubric the baseline is 3 when coverage is high. The description does not compensate for the one undocumented parameter ('query').

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 ('Build') and resource ('divar.ir web URL for a search'), and adds the purpose 'so a human can open it in a browser.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling divar_search, which presumably returns programmatic results. The action and scope are immediately understandable.

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?

The phrase 'so a human can open it in a browser' implies the intended use case, but the description gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools like divar_search. An agent must infer when this URL-builder should be chosen over the programmatic search tool.

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