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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses live scraping via a stealth browser, a 30–120s latency window, and output caveats such as the `offers` key and formatted price strings. It does not cover rate limits, reliability, or auth needs, but the major operational traits are present.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and latency, then moves into return-shape details without wasted introductory text. Some return-shape explanation is redundant with the output schema, though the `offers` key and formatted-price warnings add practical value.

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?

Given no annotations and an output schema, the description supplies the important missing context: live scraping behavior, latency expectations, and result-field caveats. Combined with full schema coverage, an agent has enough information to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters including enums and defaults. The description mentions phrase, price range, condition, and sort but adds little syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: search live Allegro.pl marketplace offers by phrase with optional filters. It clearly distinguishes this from category browsing or fetching a specific offer by describing phrase-based search.

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 phrase-based search context and optional filters imply when the tool is appropriate, and the sibling names make browse-category and get-offer alternatives inferable. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus allegro_browse_category or allegro_get_offer.

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