Sotuvchi (raqobatchi) profili

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by specifying what data is analyzed and returned, such as business flag, registration date, response time, promoted share, and latest listings. No contradiction with annotations exists; the only minor gap is lack of detail on edge cases like invalid seller_id.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: it starts with the primary action and input, then compresses the output contract into a parenthetical list. Every phrase adds information; there is no filler, repetition of the title, or redundant detail.

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 analysis tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. It identifies the required input, its source, the analysis scope, and the main output components. Missing details like pagination or error behavior are not necessary given the annotations and simple schema.

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 67%, leaving seller_id undocumented. The description compensates by explicitly defining seller_id as a user id from search results. It also ties listings_sample to 'a sample of their latest listings', while response_format is already self-documented in the schema. This adds meaning beyond the raw JSON 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Analyze any OLX seller by user id'. It enumerates the exact outputs—public profile fields, active listings, categories, price levels, promoted share, and a sample of latest listings—making the tool's purpose unmistakable. The word 'any' also distinguishes it from olx_get_my_profile, which targets the caller's own profile.

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 usage context: the seller_id comes from search results and the tool works for any OLX seller, implying competitor analysis. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as 'for your own profile use olx_get_my_profile', so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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