Rechercher des annonces Leboncoin

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

The description discloses meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it returns site totals, price statistics, per-ad fields, and a next_page pagination token. With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already covered. It does not mention the file-writing behavior of export_format or the 300-ad threshold, but these are documented in the parameter schema, lowering the burden on the description.

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?

Three sentences: the first states the primary action, the second summarizes outputs and pagination, the third routes to a sibling. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every sentence 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?

For a 19-parameter tool with rich schema descriptions, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essentials: purpose, return contents, pagination, and a routing rule for ad details. The only notable omission is the export_format large-result caveat, but that is thoroughly covered in the schema, so the description remains sufficiently complete.

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 95%, so the parameters are already thoroughly documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level semantics but notes useful returned attributes (etat, kilometrage, surface), which indirectly hints at filter keys. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without requiring additional compensation.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Recherche des annonces sur Leboncoin' (search ads on Leboncoin), and further differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly directing ad-detail lookups to get_ad. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from get_ad and get_seller.

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 description clearly states a key alternative: 'Pour le detail d'une annonce (description, photos, vendeur), utiliser get_ad.' This gives an explicit condition for choosing a sibling tool. It does not explicitly mention when to use get_seller, but the distinction between searching and retrieving seller info is clear from context.

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