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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), so the description's main added value is the cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run'), which no structured field carries. It also previews the payload shape (coordinates, photos, attributes, seller), though it omits failure behavior for invalid or delisted ads.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and identifier, followed by the returned data and the point cost. Every clause contributes and nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the agent gets back and what it costs. Minor gap: the multi-marketplace 'domain' dimension and error cases are left entirely to the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the enum of OLX domains with country labels. The description reinforces that 'offer' accepts an id or a URL but adds nothing about the 'domain' parameter or what happens when domain conflicts with the URL's marketplace.

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 one OLX ad') plus the accepted identifier forms (id or URL) and enumerates the returned fields. It is distinguishable from run_olx_offers_search in intent, though the description never names that sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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?

Use is implied: fetch a single ad when you already have an id or URL, versus the search sibling for discovery. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no prerequisites, and no alternative is named, so the agent must infer the routing.

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