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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the live public-API fetch, typical latency and an unblocker fallback path, that coordinates are 'often approximate', that contact details are excluded, and that the price field becomes salary for job offers. It stops short of describing failure behavior (expired/removed offers, invalid ids).

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the returned-field inventory and fetch characteristics. The dense semicolon-chained field list is long but every clause adds information, and the explicit result shape matters since no output schema exists.

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 2-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the field inventory, fetch timing and the caveat about approximate coordinates, so an agent knows what it will get. The main omission is error/empty-result behavior for stale or nonexistent offer ids.

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%, with id (numeric or OLX URL) and no_cache both documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about either parameter — the URL-vs-numeric id flexibility is stated only in the schema.

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 ('Full details of one OLX.pl offer') and enumerates exactly what is returned: price/salary, attributes with Polish names, description, photos, location, seller, timestamps, delivery, external link. This is unmistakably distinct from the listing-oriented siblings olx_search and olx_categories.

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 only implied: 'Full details of one... offer' suggests calling it after a search to expand a single result, and the schema's id description points to olx_search. But the description itself never states when to use this versus olx_search, nor what to do when the id is unknown.

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