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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description adds valuable context: it specifies the returned fields (price with date, quantity, municipality, description, seller status, link) and explicitly states that phone and email are on the listing page, not in the card. This goes beyond what annotations provide. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, so it is not 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?

The description is compact and front-loads the key content: what the card contains and where contact info can be found. The final bracketed module note is metadata rather than wasteful prose. It is efficient and well-structured overall.

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 simple one-parameter detail lookup with full schema coverage and annotations that cover safety, the description does enough: it explains returned fields and the contact-info limitation. It does not describe what happens when the id is invalid or missing, which is a minor gap, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter is already well documented. The description only restates 'po identyfikatorze' without adding format, source, or validation details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific resource and retrieval method: 'Karta jednego ogłoszenia po identyfikatorze' (a card of one listing by identifier). It lists the returned fields, making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search tool in the description text, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description implies usage (you need an identifier to fetch a single listing) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not name alternatives like targ_szukaj_ogloszen in the description, leaving the agent to infer from the schema that the id comes from search results.

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