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

With no annotations, the description does carry some behavioral weight: it discloses live scraping via a stealth browser and a 30–120s latency window, which is genuinely useful. However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, failure behavior, and result/pagination characteristics, leaving significant gaps for a 7-parameter scraping 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?

Two tightly written sentences, with the core action and scope front-loaded and the latency caveat placed second. No wasted words.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and adds latency context. It does not describe the shape of returned offers or any operational constraints, which leaves the agent with meaningful unknowns before calling it.

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 seven parameters are documented in the schema, including enums and defaults. The description only adds that `category` accepts an id or full URL, which the schema already states, so 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 ('Browse') and resource ('live Allegro.pl offers within a category'), and clarifies the accepted category identifier forms. It relates itself to allegro_search via 'same filters', but does not explicitly state when an agent should pick this over search, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 reference to 'same filters as allegro_search' implies a family relationship, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use category browsing versus keyword search or get_offer. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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