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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add valuable behavioral context – the data sources (Google Maps / Opinion System) and the credit cost ('1 point per returned record') – but omits permissions, rate limits, and whether results are paginated or cached. Partial coverage of a mutation-free read tool.

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?

One compact sentence covering purpose, returned fields, and cost. Nothing is wasted, and the core verb+resource is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing the returned fields and sources. However, with zero annotations, gaps remain around auth requirements, pagination semantics tied to start_page, and result limits – details an agent may need to invoke it reliably.

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 all three parameters (seller, max_items, start_page) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond what the schema states, so the 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 and resource ('Get the curated customer reviews leboncoin shows for a professional store') and enumerates the returned fields (author, rating, text, date, source). It implicitly distinguishes itself from run_leboncoin_sellers (store info) by scope, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided. The only hint is 'for a professional store', which is a scope constraint, not usage guidance. The agent must infer that this tool is for reviews rather than seller metadata.

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