OLX'da e'lonlarni qidirish

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds genuinely useful operational context: no auth needed, live public data, pagination via has_more/next_offset, and a maximum offset bound. It does not mention error behavior or rate limits, but it goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 purpose and usage, followed by a compact args list and return summary. The length is justified by the tool's 13 parameters and no output schema, though the Args enumeration slightly duplicates schema content.

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 detailing return fields, pagination fields, and the maximum accessible offset. It also routes users to the correct sibling for aggregated statistics. Minor gaps like error conditions and rate limits prevent a perfect score.

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 high (85%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description lists the arguments and adds small clarifications like UZS currency and accepted enum values, but largely repeats what the schema provides rather than adding new semantic depth.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search live OLX listings' with filters and sorting. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by noting it works on public site data without auth and by pointing to olx_analyze_market for aggregate stats instead.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: looking at competitor listings, checking current prices, or browsing a category/region. It also names the alternative for aggregated stats ('For aggregated stats use olx_analyze_market instead of paging manually'), giving the agent a clear decision rule.

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