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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds value beyond them by enumerating what each result contains (nazwa, trudność, wydajność, czas dojrzewania, opis, link) and noting the full recipe lives elsewhere. It does not mention result ordering, pagination beyond limit, or empty-result behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 purpose and the key routing fact, then the return shape, then the sibling pointer — no filler sentences. The closing module/hub provenance bracket is meta-information that does not help invocation, a minor tax on an otherwise tight description.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries return-value disclosure and does so concretely with the six fields returned. For a simple read-only, three-optional-parameter search tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: it clarifies that zapytanie matches a cheese name OR a trait, and that omitting it returns everything, which explains the all-optional parameter set. It adds little about limit or trudnosc beyond the enum already documented.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Szuka przepisów na domowe sery") and immediately scopes it: search by cheese name or trait, with concrete examples. It also contrasts itself with the sibling serowarnia_przepis, which returns the full recipe, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit about the default: "Bez zapytania zwraca wszystkie przepisy" tells the agent it may call with no arguments. It also states the alternative route ("Pełny przepis z kulturami i sklepami zwraca narzędzie przepis"), giving an explicit when-to-use-elsewhere rule.

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