run_leboncoin_sellers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a flat cost per successful run and enumerates returned data fields, but says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, error behavior, or whether the lookup is read-only beyond the verb 'Get'.

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 the core action and identifier options, then adds a concise cost note. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the returned-field list is informative rather than bloated.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and noting cost. It is largely complete, though it omits any mention of error conditions or authentication prerequisites.

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 schema already documents the single 'seller' parameter and its example. The description lists the same three identifier formats as the schema and adds no additional syntax or format guidance beyond what is structured.

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 (Get) and resource (leboncoin professional store) and enumerates the key identifier formats accepted. It clearly distinguishes a single-store lookup from a search-style sibling, though it does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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 identifier forms (store ID, seller UUID, store URL) imply this is for looking up a store when you already have an identifier, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to run_leboncoin_sellers_search or other siblings.

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