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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses live fetching with expected latency (0.3–1 s direct, ~5–10 s with unblocker fallback), that phone numbers are deliberately omitted, that codes are Otodom's own vocabulary, and that removed listings raise an error. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loads the payload description and then the operational notes (latency, errors), which is the right order. The exhaustive result-shape enumeration is long, but with no output schema it is the only structured disclosure of returns, so it largely earns its space.

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?

Covers purpose, input provenance, full return payload including the optional `development` branch, latency expectations, error behavior, and deliberate omissions. Nothing material is missing for a two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by stating where the `offer` value comes from (otodom_search slug or full URL) and by making the returned field set predictable. It does not further explain `no_cache`, leaving that entirely to the schema.

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 ('Full details of one otodom.pl listing') and extends scope precisely to developer project pages. It explicitly distinguishes itself from otodom_search by naming it as the slug source, so an agent can pick correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Tells the agent to obtain the slug from otodom_search and that a removed listing surfaces as an error, which frames when this tool is appropriate. It gives clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use exclusion beyond the sibling pointer.

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