olx_buscar_alquileres

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that setting analizar_top>0 triggers inline fraud-risk computation on the first results, a behavioral nuance beyond the annotations, but that detail largely duplicates the analizar_top schema param and no permissions, limits or pagination behavior are described.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core purpose and then the conditional deep-analysis behavior. Nothing redundant or padding.

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 20-param search tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, result content and the optional risk-analysis mode adequately, so an agent has what it needs to invoke it. It omits the url/pagination alternative paths and any guidance relative to siblings, which keeps it from 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 20 parameters (including the analizar_top behavior and the url alternative) are already documented. The description adds no filtering syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Busca alquileres en OLX Brasil con filtros') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It stops short of a 5 because it never names or contrasts the sibling tools (olx_ver_anuncio, olx_precios_mercado, olx_analizar_riesgo), leaving differentiation to inference.

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 implied through the mention of filters and the optional deep fraud/announcer analysis when analizar_top>0, which hints at when to enable it. However there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to alternatives such as olx_analizar_riesgo or olx_precios_mercado.

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