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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: test listings are excluded, sale offers and "kupię" ads are kept in separate groups, an uwaga_oferta flag signals temporarily unavailable goods, and sprawdz_tez links point to services outside the searched corpus. Ordering of groups and behavior on empty results are not disclosed.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the remaining text is dense but mostly load-bearing, since it substitutes for a missing output schema. The closing bracketed module/hub metadata adds no selection value, and the long run-on sentence chain makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 full return-value contract and does so well: grouping rules, per-group price/date/distance, the gospodarstwo sub-object with its fields and unavailability note, and the sprawdz_tez cross-links. What is missing is limited to edge behavior such as empty results and how groups are ordered.

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 each of the four parameters already carries its own description, including examples and defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only indirect context (distance is measured from the given locality, absent radius means all of Poland), which largely restates the schema. 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?

The description opens with a concrete user question ("Gdzie kupić albo komu sprzedać owies, siano, jaja... i po ile") and then specifies that results are agricultural listings grouped by commodity with lowest price, offer count and distance. That is a specific verb+resource, and it separates itself from targ_gospodarstwo by routing farm contact details there. It does not explicitly contrast with targ_ogloszenie (single listing) or ceny_aktualne, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the search/browse entry point for goods listings, and it is told to use the gospodarstwo tool for farm contact. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance against the price tools or the single-listing tool, and no prerequisites are mentioned. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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