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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral context by naming the exact signals checked and summarizing the return (score 0-100, signals, questions, safety checklist), though it does not discuss limitations or false-positive behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the return summary. The first sentence is long due to enumerating analysis criteria, but every item contributes to understanding what the tool checks, so it remains efficient.

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?

Given the read-only annotations, complete schema, and an existing output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the analysis dimensions and briefly notes the return format. The main remaining gap is explicit routing guidance relative to sibling tools, which prevents a 5.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description mentions market comparison and output format indirectly, but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides; baseline 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?

Specific verb ('Evalúa') and resource ('riesgo de estafa de un anuncio'), with detailed scope (price vs. market, account age, scam phrases, contacts, photos, location coherence). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like olx_ver_anuncio or olx_comparar_anuncios because its purpose is fraud-risk analysis, not listing retrieval or direct comparison.

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 implies the tool is for analyzing an OLX listing's fraud risk, but it never states when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., olx_ver_anuncio, olx_comparar_anuncios) or any exclusions. Usage is inferable from the stated analysis criteria, which fits a minimum-viable 3.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that setting analizar_top>0 triggers inline fraud-risk computation on the first results, a behavioral nuance beyond the annotations, but that detail largely duplicates the analizar_top schema param and no permissions, limits or pagination behavior are described.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core purpose and then the conditional deep-analysis behavior. Nothing redundant or padding.

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 20-param search tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, result content and the optional risk-analysis mode adequately, so an agent has what it needs to invoke it. It omits the url/pagination alternative paths and any guidance relative to siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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 all 20 parameters (including the analizar_top behavior and the url alternative) are already documented. The description adds no filtering syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Busca alquileres en OLX Brasil con filtros') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It stops short of a 5 because it never names or contrasts the sibling tools (olx_ver_anuncio, olx_precios_mercado, olx_analizar_riesgo), leaving differentiation to inference.

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?

Usage is implied through the mention of filters and the optional deep fraud/announcer analysis when analizar_top>0, which hints at when to enable it. However there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to alternatives such as olx_analizar_riesgo or olx_precios_mercado.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the set of compared attributes but says nothing extra about batching behavior, per-listing failure handling, or rate limits, so it earns only partial credit beyond 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?

A single tightly-written sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the compared dimensions with no filler. Efficient, though a one-line routing hint would have cost nothing and added value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description's job is to convey what is compared, which it does. The only real gap is any routing against sibling tools such as olx_ver_anuncio for a single listing.

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 parameters (formato enum, anuncios array with min/max) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description's enumerated attributes describe the output rather than the parameters and add no syntax or format meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (compara) and resource (anuncios) and enumerates the comparison dimensions (costo mensual, m², R$/m², pagos extra, garantías, tipo de anunciante, riesgo de fraude), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings like olx_analizar_riesgo or olx_ver_anuncio, but the side-by-side multi-listing framing is reasonably distinct.

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 phrase 'varios anuncios lado a lado' implies the use case (comparing 2-10 listings at once) but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the siblings. Guidance is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description restates the output metrics, which is largely redundant given the output schema exists, and adds no behavioral context such as rate limits, scraping/sampling caveats, or data freshness.

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?

Two compact sentences, with the concrete output metrics front-loaded ahead of the use-case clause. Nothing is wasted, though it is terse enough that it omits context an agent might want.

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 a full output schema, complete parameter coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to frame purpose and use — which it does adequately. The main residual gap is no signal about the sampling nature (paginas) or how to act on the returned range.

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 all four parameters (tipo, paginas, ubicacion, habitaciones) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides (only an implicit 'zona' hinting at ubicacion), which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 names the specific resource (reference rental price for a zone) and enumerates exactly what it computes: median, P25–P75 range, total monthly with condo+IPTU, and R$/m². This clearly separates it from siblings like olx_buscar_alquileres (search) and olx_ver_anuncio (view), though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 closing clause 'Útil para saber si un anuncio está caro o sospechosamente barato' implies a use case (price sanity-checking a listing) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing and never points to olx_comparar_anuncios or olx_analizar_riesgo as the alternatives for related decisions. Usage is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by listing the returned content categories, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or failure modes beyond what annotations and the output schema already convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a routing sentence at the end. The field enumeration is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what data it will get; no filler sentences.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description needn't restate return format, and it covers purpose plus one routing case. Complete enough for a read-only detail tool, though sibling routing is only partial.

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 parameters (anuncio as URL or list id, formato enum markdown/json) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Detalle completo de un anuncio') and enumerates exactly what the detail contains – payments, direct-from-owner status, contacts, address/CEP, advertiser profile, fraud risk. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from olx_analizar_riesgo, so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening 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?

It gives an explicit when-not and names the alternative: 'No compara con el mercado (usa olx_analizar_riesgo para eso)'. This routes the market-comparison case away, but it does not mention the other plausible siblings (olx_comparar_anuncios, olx_precios_mercado), so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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