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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful disclosure about returned content and a privacy condition ("kontakt tylko gdy gospodarz się zgodził"), but says nothing about behavior when no entry matches.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with what is returned and keeps the input examples early. The long enumeration of card contents is dense but each item is informative, with no filler.

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 usefully enumerates what the card contains (offer, seasons, lodging, events, contact, trust level, data freshness, link), which is the main gap it needed to fill. The remaining omission is failure behavior for unknown or duplicate names.

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 the schema description already explains that the value is a name from the search results or a site domain. The examples ("Agrojelonki", "specdrob.pl") illustrate accepted formats but add little 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 resource and scope: "Pełna karta jednego wpisu po nazwie albo domenie", with two concrete input examples. An agent can tell this is a single-entity detail lookup rather than a search, though it never names the search sibling it complements.

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: lookup by name or domain, and the schema note points to names from the search tool. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the search tool, nor what to do if the name is unknown or ambiguous.

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