run_olx_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; 'Get' implies a read, and the 5-points-per-record disclosure is genuinely useful cost context. However, it omits auth/permission needs, rate limits, and failure behavior (e.g. what happens with an invalid or ambiguous identifier), which a no-annotation mutation/read tool should ideally cover.

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 resource and identifier forms, with the cost note in a compact trailing clause. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates well by enumerating the profile fields returned, and the cost disclosure covers billing expectations. It is slightly short of complete because the domain parameter's role is never addressed and error/edge-case behavior is 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 schema already documents both 'user' and 'domain', making 3 the baseline. The description restates the identifier forms from the schema but adds no new meaning, and it never mentions the domain parameter or how it interacts with a bare numeric id.

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 and resource ('Get an OLX seller profile') and enumerates the returned fields (account type, registration, last seen, response time, business details), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not name or contrast any sibling such as run_olx_users_offers or run_olx_offers, so it stops 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 only implied: the accepted identifier forms (id, uuid, profile URL) suggest it is a profile-lookup step, and the cost line hints at budget sensitivity. There is no statement of when to prefer this over run_olx_users_offers or run_olx_offers, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether domain must match the identifier) are given.

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