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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The note '1 point per returned record' is valuable billing/cost transparency, but no information is given about read-only nature, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the returned records contain.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The billing note is concise and directly relevant.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and billing cost but omits behavioral details such as read-only safety, pagination semantics, and return value structure. It is minimally viable but leaves several gaps for an agent to infer.

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 the schema already documents the ad, max_items, and start_page parameters. The description adds the fact that 'ad' can be an ID or URL, which aligns with the schema, but does not add meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (shows/returns related ads) and resource (Kleinanzeigen listings), distinguishing it from run_kleinanzeigen_listings and run_kleinanzeigen_listings_search by being the 'similar/related' variant. It is clear what it does, though the phrasing 'Related ads Kleinanzeigen shows on an ad's page' is slightly awkward.

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?

Implies usage by clarifying that input is an ad id or URL and results are related ads found on that ad's page. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings like run_kleinanzeigen_listings_search or run_kleinanzeigen_sellers_listings.

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