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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that the hub forwards the question to the Moja Pasza server, i.e. a remote lookup — but says nothing about what happens on failure or how stale the counts may be.

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 named up front and the returned fields listed in a tight enumeration, followed by a bracketed provenance note. Dense but every clause carries information; the list is slightly crammed but no sentence is wasted.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description's job is to say what comes back, and it does: counts, categories, species, price-day coverage, license and citation format. It could state more clearly that it returns metadata only (not the underlying records), but for a simple read-only info tool this is nearly 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The enumerated metadata fields effectively serve as an informal description of what the parameterless call returns.

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?

Starts with 'Opis bazy' and enumerates exactly which metadata is returned (counts of raw materials, products, feeds, shops, categories, species, price date coverage, license, citation). This is a concrete metadata/about resource rather than a tautology, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling 'o_hubie' or 'serowarnia_o_bazie', leaving the agent to infer the boundary from the name alone.

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: an agent can infer the tool is for questions about database scope, licensing or citation. There is no explicit 'use this when...', no 'do not use for actual feed calculations — use pasze_policz_mieszanke', and no prerequisite guidance.

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