olx_comparar_anuncios

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the set of compared attributes but says nothing extra about batching behavior, per-listing failure handling, or rate limits, so it earns only partial credit beyond annotations.

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 that front-loads the action and then lists the compared dimensions with no filler. Efficient, though a one-line routing hint would have cost nothing and added value.

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 no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description's job is to convey what is compared, which it does. The only real gap is any routing against sibling tools such as olx_ver_anuncio for a single listing.

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 both parameters (formato enum, anuncios array with min/max) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description's enumerated attributes describe the output rather than the parameters and add no syntax or format meaning. 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 names a specific verb (compara) and resource (anuncios) and enumerates the comparison dimensions (costo mensual, m², R$/m², pagos extra, garantías, tipo de anunciante, riesgo de fraude), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings like olx_analizar_riesgo or olx_ver_anuncio, but the side-by-side multi-listing framing is reasonably distinct.

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 phrase 'varios anuncios lado a lado' implies the use case (comparing 2-10 listings at once) but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the siblings. Guidance is left to inference.

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