Mening OLX profilim

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds value by scoping to the logged-in account and detailing the returned categories (counters by status, saved ads/search, wallet balance). It does not cover auth-failure behavior or rate limits, but those are not required given 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 is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and its first sentence carries a dense but useful list of returned data. The second sentence earns its place by routing to a sibling. It is slightly list-heavy, but there is no waste or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the profile sections an agent can expect. It also provides the key cross-tool routing for advert stats. It stops short of explaining session failures or exact response shape, but the 'logged-in' qualifier and sibling set make the remaining gaps minor.

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 100%: the only parameter, response_format, has an enum, default, and explanatory description in the schema. The tool description contributes no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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?

Description states a precise action ('Get') on a specific resource ('logged-in OLX account profile') and enumerates the major data groups returned. It explicitly distinguishes itself from olx_list_my_adverts by directing advert-level views/phone stats to that sibling, so an agent can discriminate without opening other schemas.

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 tool's context is clear: it is for account/profile-level data rather than per-advert statistics. The final sentence explicitly names the alternative tool and the exact condition ('advert list with views/phone stats') that should route to olx_list_my_adverts, leaving no ambiguity.

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