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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries more burden. It discloses that this is a retrieval operation, lists the returned fields, and notes a flat cost of 5 points per successful run. However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, error/not-found behavior, and does not explicitly state it is read-only.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core get operation is stated first, followed by returned fields and a brief cost note. It is efficient, though the cost sentence is a slight appendage rather than essential tool-selection guidance.

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 identifier-based lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it names the resource, accepted identifiers, and returned fields. It still leaves failure handling and permissions unstated, which keeps it from being fully self-sufficient.

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 itself documents the single 'seller' parameter with the same accepted identifier types and an example. The description repeats this information without adding syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Get), resource (leboncoin professional store), and accepted identifier types (store ID, seller UUID, store URL). The listed returned fields further clarify scope, and the distinction from sibling search tools is implicit in the identifier-based access pattern.

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 implies usage when a store ID, seller UUID, or store URL is available, but does not explicitly say when to use this over run_leboncoin_sellers_search or other alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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