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. It does disclose the pricing model ('5 point per returned record'), which is genuinely useful billing context an agent would not otherwise know, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or failure 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the operation, accepted input forms, returned fields, and cost with zero filler. Nothing can be trimmed without losing information.

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, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it adds the credit cost. Only the lack of any guidance on failure modes or the sibling search tool keeps it from being fully complete.

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%: the 'offer' field documents id-or-URL usage with an example, and 'domain' documents every enum value and the default. The description's 'by id or URL' merely restates the schema, 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+resource ('Get one OLX ad by id or URL') and enumerates the returned payload (price, description, location with coordinates, photos, attributes, seller). The word 'one' plus the id/URL input distinguishes it from the sibling run_olx_offers_search without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetching a single ad by identifier or URL versus browsing/searching. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when an ad lookup fails or that run_olx_offers_search is the alternative for bulk/keyword retrieval.

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