Mening e'lonimni raqobatchilar bilan solishtirish

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: it loads advert stats, searches live listings by title/category, requires a session, and produces recommendations. There is no contradiction with the 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?

The description front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then compactly summarizes the behavior and the key outputs. The Args block is terse and each line conveys a meaningful constraint or provenance detail. No filler or repetition of the schema is present.

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 tool's moderate complexity and six parameters, the description covers the main behavioral flow, input provenance, and the nature of the generated report. The response_format parameter already tells the agent how results will be returned, so an output schema is not required. It is not a 5 only because it does not explicitly tell the agent when to prefer this over closely related siblings.

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 coverage is 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that advert_id comes from olx_list_my_adverts, query defaults to the first 5 title words, and city_id/region_id restrict competitors. It also clarifies the purpose of sample_size as the number of listings to compare against. This is genuinely useful guidance above the structured schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Compare'), a clear resource ('one of the logged-in account's adverts'), and the comparison target ('similar live listings on OLX'). It also enumerates the output report components, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool produces. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like olx_find_competitors or olx_analyze_market because it operates on the caller's own advert.

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 gives clear context: it needs a session, uses title keywords within the same category, and can be restricted by location. It references provenance helpers such as olx_list_my_adverts and olx_find_location. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use it or list exclusion criteria against sibling tools, so it stops just short of a 5.

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