run_kleinanzeigen_sellers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully adds the returned fields (type, active since, followers, badges) and the flat 5-point cost per successful run, but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, invalid-ID behavior, or failure modes for a network-backed extraction tool.

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, front-loaded with what is fetched, followed by cost. No filler 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 partially compensates by naming the returned attributes and the point cost, which is enough for an agent to select and call it correctly. Error behavior and pagination/auth context for a zero-annotation tool remain unstated.

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 the single 'seller' parameter is already documented with an example (4667542). The description repeats 'user id or profile URL' without adding format or validation detail beyond the schema; 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 ('Get one Kleinanzeigen seller') plus the two accepted identifiers (user id or profile URL), which implicitly contrasts with sibling run_kleinanzeigen_sellers_listings. It never names that sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 strongly implied: fetch a single seller profile when you have an ID or URL. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling _sellers_listings tool for fetching a seller's listings, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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