divar_similar_posts

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 discloses key behaviors: filtering by category/brand/model/city and excluding the input post. However, it does not mention potential errors, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format. The added context is useful but not comprehensive for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two sentences with no extraneous words. The function and criteria are front-loaded, followed by concise use cases. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly effective and easy to parse.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain what the response contains. It states 'comparable listings' but does not specify the format (e.g., list of post tokens, full post objects, or metadata). It also omits error handling or edge cases. Given the tool's simplicity and the availability of divar_get_post for details, it is partially complete but lacks important contextual depth.

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% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the token determines category/brand/model and city is a filter, but does not provide extra parameter-level details beyond the schema's own descriptions. It reinforces meaning rather than adding new information.

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 clearly states the tool's function: returns comparable listings for an existing post, with specific criteria (same category, brand/model, city) and exclusion of the post itself. It distinguishes itself from siblings like divar_search (general search) and divar_get_post (single post retrieval) by focusing on similarity based on an existing token.

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 description gives explicit usage context: 'useful for a seller checking competition or a buyer checking the price'. It clearly implies when to use the tool (when you have an existing post and want comparables) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when a general search is more appropriate.

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