Dealer page

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the 11-ad cap, the absence of paging, the exact shape of each ad row (token, title, price, district, age, photos, tag), and how to build the ad link from url_prefix + token. That is meaningful behavioral context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Purpose and returned fields are front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a second paragraph covering the paging limitation, row format, and link construction. Every clause carries usable information with no padding.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so fully: it lists the page fields, the ad-row fields, the link convention, and the meaning of age_h. An agent can call this correctly and interpret the response without further help.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Dealer id from dv_seller, e.g. ZbeypyTr'), including pattern and length. The description adds no additional semantics about brand_token, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource ('a business account's public page') and enumerates exactly what it returns (name, active ad count, member since, first 11 ads), so an agent knows precisely what this fetches. It stops short of an explicit contrast with the closest sibling, dv_seller (individual seller vs. business account), so sibling differentiation is left to inference from the param description.

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?

It clearly states the tool's limit ('only the first batch... no paging') and routes the agent elsewhere for more ('search with the dealer's name or use the ad filters'), naming the viable alternatives. The routing is by description rather than tool name, but the condition that selects the alternative is explicit.

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