olx_analizar_riesgo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral context by naming the exact signals checked and summarizing the return (score 0-100, signals, questions, safety checklist), though it does not discuss limitations or false-positive behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the return summary. The first sentence is long due to enumerating analysis criteria, but every item contributes to understanding what the tool checks, so it remains efficient.

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 the read-only annotations, complete schema, and an existing output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the analysis dimensions and briefly notes the return format. The main remaining gap is explicit routing guidance relative to sibling tools, which prevents a 5.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description mentions market comparison and output format indirectly, but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb ('Evalúa') and resource ('riesgo de estafa de un anuncio'), with detailed scope (price vs. market, account age, scam phrases, contacts, photos, location coherence). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like olx_ver_anuncio or olx_comparar_anuncios because its purpose is fraud-risk analysis, not listing retrieval or direct comparison.

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 implies the tool is for analyzing an OLX listing's fraud risk, but it never states when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., olx_ver_anuncio, olx_comparar_anuncios) or any exclusions. Usage is inferable from the stated analysis criteria, which fits a minimum-viable 3.

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