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 genuine context beyond that: 121 reference ingredients plus producer/priced supplement products, the no-query category-list behavior, and the single-hit/pelny=true full-composition rule.

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 opening sentence ('Skład surowców paszowych: zbóż, śrut, strączkowych, dodatków mineralnych') largely repeats the parenthetical enumeration in the second sentence, and the module/hub footer adds bulk. The core behavior statements are front-loaded and useful, but the category lists are duplicated.

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 describing returns, and it does so by listing the nutrient fields and flags plus the full-composition mode. It does not explain the 'dalej' pagination cursor, though the schema itself documents that.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the effect of omitting 'zapytanie' (category list) and of setting pelny=true (full composition with minerals and amino acids). Pagination via od/limit is left 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Wyszukuje') and resource (feed raw materials), and enumerates the data returned (energy, protein, Ca, P, fiber, fat, amino acids, GMO, organic status). It never differentiates itself from close siblings such as pasze_szukaj_dodatkow or pasze_dodatek, so an agent must still guess which search tool to pick.

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 implied by the behavior notes: calling with no query returns the category list, and a single hit or pelny=true returns full composition. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the sibling supplement-search tools or when to fall back to them.

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