Raqobatchilarni aniqlash

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it samples listings, groups by seller, ranks by listing count, enriches top sellers with profile and active-listing data, and states that no auth is needed. The explicit list of returned per-competitor fields also goes well beyond the annotation hints.

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 is compact and well ordered: purpose first, then method, then return fields, then follow-up, then auth note. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of schema constraints.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, return fields, next-step tool, and authentication requirements, while the schema covers all parameter details. The remaining ambiguity is that all parameters are optional and the description does not clarify what happens or what is required for a valid call with no filters.

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 every one of the 12 parameters is already documented with type, constraints, and examples in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: identifying the main competitors/sellers for a product/segment on OLX. It also explains the method (grouping sampled listings by seller, ranking by count, enriching top sellers), which makes the tool's function concrete and distinguishable from listing-search and seller-profile tools.

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 explicitly indicates when to use the tool — when competitor discovery for a product/segment is needed — and gives a clear follow-up path with olx_get_seller(seller_id). It does not, however, state when not to use it or how it compares to olx_search_offers or olx_analyze_market, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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