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 does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — '1 point per returned record' (a cost/consumption trait found nowhere in the schema) — and 'live' implies freshness. But it omits whether the call is read-only, what the response looks like, and whether pagination beyond 20 pages is possible.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ending with the cost note. The facet list is slightly redundant against the schema but is compact and helps an agent scan capability at a glance.

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 16-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose and cost but says nothing about the return shape or result structure. It is adequate because the schema fully documents inputs, but output expectations are left entirely to inference.

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% across all 16 parameters (including enums, defaults, and limits), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only summarizes the facet groups and adds no syntax, currency, or ID-resolution detail beyond it — baseline 3.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Search live OLX ads') plus the facets it supports (category, price, condition, seller type, location, delivery, sort). It is specific enough to distinguish from run_olx_offers (fetch specific offers) and run_olx_users (seller data), though it never names those siblings 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?

Usage is implied by 'Search live OLX ads by keyword', but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to siblings like run_olx_offers or run_olx_categories_filters. The agent must infer the search-vs-lookup split itself.

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