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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real context beyond that: answers carry sources, breeder practice notes and a link to a guide on mojapasza.com, and the hub forwards the question to the module's own server. It does not mention limits on answer size or how search hits are ranked, which keeps it at a modest level.

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?

The topic list comes first, then the answer-content note, then the lookup modes, then module attribution — a sensible front-loaded order with no filler. The bracketed module/URL tail is useful routing context rather than padding. Slightly dense because several ideas are packed into one paragraph.

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 read-only, two-optional-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers what the answers contain (sources, practice, guide link), what happens with no parameters, and where the data comes from. An agent can call it correctly on that basis. Missing only edge-case behavior, such as what a failed id or question match returns.

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 100%, and both optional parameters already carry descriptions with examples (id e.g. "oplacalnosc", question e.g. "od ilu kur zacząć sprzedaż jaj"). The description adds the meaningful detail that omitting both parameters returns the question list rather than an error. Beyond that it repeats the schema's id/text dichotomy, so the baseline of 3 fits.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: answers to frequent questions from layer-hen breeders, and enumerates the topic scope (starting flock size, egg sales, profitability, winter feed and laying drop). It also labels itself as the 'Moduł wiedzy Moja Pasza' and notes the hub forwards questions to its own server, which separates it from the calculation/price siblings. It stops short of naming a specific sibling to use instead for feed calculations, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 gives explicit invocation modes: search by the breeder's question text, search by id, or call with no parameters to get the list of questions that have answers. That is solid when-to-use guidance at the call level. It offers no exclusions or pointer to which sibling handles feed-ratio or cost questions, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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