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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most decision-relevant trait: data is scraped live through a stealth browser, so a call costs roughly 30–120s. That latency warning materially affects how an agent schedules calls. It stops short of stating auth needs, rate limits, or what happens on an invalid/removed offer.

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, zero waste: the core action and return fields come first, and the latency caveat follows as a separate, clearly bounded sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields (title, price, seller, condition, description summary, parameters, images) plus the latency profile. Failure modes for a bad id or delisted offer are the main remaining gap.

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% and the single offerId parameter already documents that it accepts a numeric id or a full oferta URL, so the description's 'by id or URL' restates rather than augments it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 — fetch a single Allegro.pl offer — and scopes it to one item, which implicitly separates it from the list-oriented siblings allegro_search and allegro_browse_category. The parenthetical enumerates exactly what comes back, so an agent knows the payload before opening the schema.

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 'single ... offer by id or URL', but the description never names the alternatives (allegro_search, allegro_browse_category) or states when to prefer them. There are no explicit exclusions or preconditions, so routing to the right sibling is left to inference.

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