run_olx_categories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds real behavioral value by disclosing the per-record cost ('5 point per returned record') and the exact shape of each returned record, which tells the agent the output is a category tree with offer counts. Still missing: auth requirements, whether counts are live/approximate at call time, and any rate or pagination notes.

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, both front-loaded and earning their place: the first specifies the resource and its return shape, the second discloses cost. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 appropriately enumerates the returned fields and adds the cost signal, which is enough for an agent to call and interpret the result. It omits usage context and any note on the max_items=500 cap or tree traversal via parent_id/level, but nothing critical for invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema documents level, domain (with per-marketplace enum labels), max_items, and parent_id, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior — e.g. how level and parent_id interact for scoping the tree — beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the resource — 'Full category tree of an OLX marketplace' — and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, alias, parent id, depth, child ids, URL, offer count), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearby sibling run_olx_categories_filters, which an agent could easily confuse with this 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus run_olx_categories_filters, run_olx_offers, or run_olx_regions. No prerequisites, no conditions for choosing level vs parent_id. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and schema.

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