E'lon statistikasi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds what data is returned (totals, daily history, paid promotions) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, auth requirements, or response structure. This is acceptable given the annotations, but no extra behavioral caveats are provided.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the most important information (what the tool returns), and ends with a clear usage statement. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only tool with two fully documented parameters, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: it names the specific data returned, the daily history, paid promotions, and the intended use case. The schema handles parameter details, so nothing critical is missing.

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 advert_id and response_format are already documented with formats, defaults, and sources. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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: 'Get one of the account's adverts with totals ... and the DAILY statistics history ... plus paid promotions history.' It also mentions concrete data types (views, phone views, saves, messages), distinguishing it from sibling tools like olx_list_my_adverts and olx_compare_my_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 provides clear context: 'Use to see how an advert's traffic changes over time.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the intended usage is unambiguous and helpful for an agent.

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