Kategoriya va uning parametrlari

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds 'No auth needed' and clarifies that the response is a category's configuration, including parameter constraints and allowed values. This gives the agent a concrete expectation of what will come back. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but for a safe, read-only lookup the annotations already cover the key behavioral traits. No contradiction with 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?

Four short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The primary result fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed immediately by the actionable use case, auth note, and sibling-tool pointer. It avoids repeating schema text and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the category data contains, where to get the category_id, and why the result is useful for posting adverts. The optional response_format and include_children parameters are explained in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them. The only minor omission is not mentioning error behavior for an invalid category_id, which is acceptable for a safe operation.

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?

The schema already describes response_format and include_children, and the description adds meaning to the undocumented category_id by framing it as an OLX category lookup and pointing to olx_list_categories as the source of ids. It also explains why the returned parameter codes and value keys matter, connecting the output back to ad posting. With two of three parameters already documented in the schema, the description's added contribution is moderate but useful.

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 opens with 'Get an OLX category' and enumerates the exact payload: name, path, is_addable/leaf, max photos, validity days, subcategories, and advert parameter definitions including codes, types, required flags, units, and allowed values. This resource-level specificity clearly separates it from olx_list_categories, which returns category ids, and from olx_suggest_category.

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 says to use the returned parameter codes and value keys when posting an advert, giving the agent a concrete downstream use case. It also directs the agent to olx_list_categories for finding category ids, establishing the proper lookup sequence. It does not spell out when to prefer olx_suggest_category or olx_list_categories, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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