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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results include net price ranges in PLN and typical durations, which tells the agent the shape of the payload, but it says nothing about ordering, filtering behavior, or that results are localized by the language parameter.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the payoff (price ranges, durations) is placed at the end where it matters. The parenthetical service list is long but genuinely informative about coverage.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. For a simple zero-required-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only the absence of routing guidance to sibling tools keeps it from being fully complete.

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% for the single optional 'language' parameter, including its enum and default, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no information about the parameter, 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?

The description names a concrete resource (Rafał Doniec's services) and enumerates the service categories plus the data returned (net price ranges in PLN, typical duration), so an agent knows exactly what it will get back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like match_service or estimate_price, which cover overlapping ground.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as match_service (find the best-fitting service) or estimate_price (price for a specific scope). The agent must infer the browsing-vs-matching distinction from the names alone.

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