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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that only 'active' offers are returned and that cost is 1 point per returned record, which is genuine behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it omits pagination behavior limits, defaults interplay, and any auth/rate-limit notes, leaving notable gaps.

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 tight sentences with the resource and identifier forms front-loaded and the cost note appended. Minimal waste, though the 'category filter and sort' phrase is slightly redundant with the fully-documented schema.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and cost but leaves the return structure, pagination behavior, and usage differentiation to the schema and inference. Adequate but not complete for the tool's complexity.

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 six parameters (sort, user, domain, max_items, start_page, category_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a high-level mention of 'category filter and sort' and identifier forms, which does not exceed the schema's detail. 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 and resource ('a seller's active OLX offers') and identifies the acceptable identifier forms (user id, uuid, profile URL), plus the available category filter and sort. It clearly distinguishes itself from the general run_olx_offers and run_olx_offers_search by tying the result to a seller, though it doesn't name 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?

The description implies the use case (fetching one seller's listings) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against sibling tools like run_olx_offers_search or run_olx_users. An agent must infer when this beats the broader offers/search tools.

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