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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: it returns live product data when the item is in the catalog, cites sources, and always includes a disclaimer field, plus it explicitly frames output as tradition rather than diagnosis. It does not describe response structure or failure behavior in more detail.

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-loaded with the core action, then the output contents, then the important caveat about tradition versus diagnosis. It is a single dense paragraph with little waste, though the disclaimer point is repeated in slightly different words.

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 burden of explaining returns, and it does: cited source, taste/nature/meridian profile, live product data, and a disclaimer field. Combined with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only sibling disambiguation is missing.

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 all three parameters (opis, locale, pora_roku) are already documented with examples and defaults. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: translating a client's wellbeing description into the TCM framework (qi, yin/yang, organs, seasons) and mapping mushrooms traditionally associated with it. It also names the output shape (cited source, taste/nature/meridian profile, live product data). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tcm_translate, which appears to be a near-duplicate name.

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 tool is for interpreting a client's self-described state through TCM. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no routing to siblings such as polec_produkty, search_products, or tcm_translate, which an agent would plausibly confuse with this one.

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