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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by outlining the returned sections and noting that the hub forwards the query to an external server. However, it never says what happens when the supplied name does not match any farm, and its 'no name' fallback sits awkwardly against a schema that marks 'nazwa' as required.

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 definition is one front-loaded block that leads with what the agent gets and then lists the page contents, with no obvious filler. It is dense and slightly run-on, and the trailing module/hub note is metadata rather than guidance, but nothing is redundant.

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 return values and does so thoroughly, section by section. What is missing for full completeness is the not-found behaviour and the exact conditions under which an empty or list-shaped response is returned.

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% – the single 'nazwa' parameter already has type, length bounds, a description, and an example. The description adds only the meaning of the presence/absence of the name, without clarifying format variants (partial names, diacritics, aliases) that a lookup would need.

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-plus-resource ('Strona gospodarstwa po nazwie' – the farm's page by name) and enumerates exactly what it returns: what the farm sells with price and date, location, contact details, lodging, workshops, news, and a link. An agent can distinguish this page-lookup from the listing/search siblings without opening the 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?

It gives clear context of use – fetch the page of one specific farm when the name is known – and describes the degradation path when no name is given (returns a list of available farms). It stops short of explicitly naming the search sibling as the preferred route for discovery, so guidance is clear but not fully exclusive.

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