run_olx_users_offers

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 that only 'active' offers are returned and that cost is '1 point per returned record', which is genuine behavioral context. However, it omits pagination behavior, auth/credential requirements, and rate limits, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 compact sentence with the resource and key filters front-loaded, followed by the cost note. Very little waste, though the telegraphic fragment style trades a little clarity for brevity.

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 6-parameter tool spanning 7 marketplaces with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It covers purpose and cost but says nothing about the return shape, page size limits, or which domain the seller must belong to, so an agent still lacks some context needed to call it well.

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 every parameter (sort, user, domain, max_items, start_page, category_id) is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the user identifier forms and mentions category filter and sort without adding syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies 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?

The description states a clear resource (a seller's active OLX offers) and how to target it (user id, uuid or profile URL), plus the supported category filter and sort. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the general run_olx_offers and run_olx_offers_search by scoping to a seller's offers, though it never names those siblings 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the alternatives run_olx_offers, run_olx_offers_search, or run_olx_users. The user must infer the appropriate context purely from the resource named.

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