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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the result shape (normalized public listing cards) and the scope limit (a single location result page, implying no built-in pagination), but says nothing about rate limits, result counts, or ordering.

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?

A single tightly written sentence with no filler; the scope constraint is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the definition's gaps.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a location-only search tool the description omits how to format the location argument, whether filters or paging exist, and how this differs from leboncoin_listing. Too much is left for the agent to guess.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never states what a valid "location" value looks like (city name, postal code, region id, slug), which is the one thing an agent must get right to call this tool.

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 names a verb and resource ("returns normalized public listing cards") and scopes it to "one location result page," which tells the agent this is a single-page browse-by-location call. However, it never frames the tool as a search, never says what is being searched for, and gives no basis for distinguishing it from the sibling leboncoin_listing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of leboncoin_listing or any alternative. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the entry point for browsing listings by location.

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