OLX akkauntiga kirish

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

Annotations already say readOnlyHint=false (mutation), idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it opens a visible window on the user's machine, waits until login is detected, saves session cookies locally, and does not type credentials. This covers the important non-obvious behavior (interactive user involvement, no automation of credentials, cookie persistence). It could have mentioned that it blocks until timeout or returns a session-status result, but the main behavioral risks (no credential entry, cookie saving) are clearly disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: what the tool does, key constraint (never types credentials/waits and saves cookies), and when to call it plus user instructions. No filler, and the critical caveat ('never types credentials') is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 login tool with 1 optional param and no output schema, this is complete. It covers the purpose, the interaction model, the trigger condition, the timeout parameter, the side effect (saving cookies), and the user-facing message. An agent can invoke this correctly and knows what to tell the user. Nothing essential 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?

With 1 parameter and schema description coverage at 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning though: it explains wait_minutes corresponds to 'waits until login is detected (up to wait_minutes)', which ties the parameter to the login-wait behavior. It doesn't describe what happens when the timeout is reached (e.g., error vs. return), but for a single optional parameter with reasonable schema docs, this is more than minimum.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('open a visible Chrome window... to log into their OLX account') and clearly differentiates it from siblings: it's the only tool that performs interactive login, while siblings like olx_session_status and olx_get_my_profile require an existing session. Even without knowing the sibling definitions, an agent can tell this is the login/session-restoration tool.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it: 'Call this when any account tool returns a session error.' It also says what the tool does NOT do ('never types credentials') and what the user must do, plus it gives a concrete first step ('Tell the user a Chrome window has opened'). This is strong usage guidance with no ambiguity.

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