Search Leboncoin

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

Annotations declare readOnly and openWorld hints, but description significantly extends them with concrete behavior: rate limiting/pacing due to Leboncoin monitoring and a detailed prompt-injection policy for treating result text as data, ignoring instructions, and reporting them to the user. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Six sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return value, followed by actionable caveats. Every sentence adds distinct value—alternative tool, rate limits, and security policy—without redundant filler.

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 13-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides essential context: output shape, normalization, sibling guidance, rate limiting, and prompt-injection handling. It leverages the schema's per-parameter descriptions and annotations, making the combination sufficiently complete.

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?

The description adds no parameter-specific explanations beyond the input schema; it focuses on output and usage. Schema covers 69% of parameters with descriptions, and the remaining parameters (page, sortBy, minPrice, maxPrice) are self-explanatory given their names/constraints, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource ('Searches Leboncoin ads') and outlines return fields ('normalised listings with price, location, seller type and attributes'). It distinguishes itself from sibling search_similar_listings by explicitly recommending that tool for pricing tasks.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Prefer search_similar_listings when the goal is to price an item' names an alternative and when to use it. It also sets a soft usage constraint ('Keep the number of searches small') and explains the reason ('the server paces requests deliberately because Leboncoin watches for bursts').

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