Subletka

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only that the response contains description, photos, and terms, which is modest added value beyond the structured hints.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating resource and payload with zero filler. Nothing redundant or padded.

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, but the description summarizes what is returned (description, photos, terms) for a simple two-parameter read tool. The remaining gap is the absence of guidance on sourcing the id from a search result, which exists only in the schema.

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% and both parameters (id, lang) are fully documented in the schema, including the PLN/EUR currency behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, 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?

States a clear verb+resource: fetching full details of exactly one listing, and enumerates the payload (description, photos, terms). It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_listings, so the agent must infer that this is the detail-fetch counterpart to a search.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance appears in the description. The only hint that an id comes from a prior search lives in the schema's parameter text, not the description, so routing between get_listing and search_listings is left to inference.

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

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

With annotations already covering read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior, the description adds the response content shape (listing counts, lowest/median rent, district names) that would otherwise be undocumented since no output schema exists. It does not add auth, caching, or scope caveats, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the most important content (what cities/districts the response contains) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the run-on list of returned fields is slightly dense.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only reference tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description is essentially complete, covering the returned data that the absent output schema would otherwise provide. Minor gaps remain around ordering/pagination of the list.

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% and the single optional 'lang' parameter is fully documented in the schema (language and currency mapping). The description adds no meaning about 'lang' beyond that, 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?

States a specific resource (cities and districts) and enumerates exactly what is returned: active listing counts, lowest/median rent, district names with counts and rents. It is clearly distinguishable from get_listing and search_listings as a reference/taxonomy lookup, though the leading verb is implicit rather than stated.

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 only implied: naming districts 'accepted by search_listings' hints this is the endpoint to call before searching by district, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention that it is meant as a discovery step. The link to the sibling is suggestive rather than directive.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The second sentence does add non-structured context about the result payload (each result links to its Subletka page where the lister is contacted), which is genuinely useful, but there is nothing on result volume, paging behavior beyond the schema, or filtering gotchas.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads purpose and the full filter surface, the second covers what a result is and the next step. No filler, though the second sentence is arguably expendable for calling the tool correctly.

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 read-only search tool with 13 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope and the downstream shape of results adequately. It doesn't need to explain return fields since the description notes each result links to a Subletka page, though broader paging/output expectations could be clearer.

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 per the baseline this is a 3. The description restates the filter axes (district, dates, type, rooms, rent) but adds no syntax, defaults, or interpretation beyond what the thoroughly documented schema already provides for parameters like lang, sort, rooms and district.

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?

A specific verb (Search) plus resource (active rooms and flats) with explicit scope: cities, date window, place type, rooms, max rent. It clearly separates a search over many listings from a single-record lookup, but it never names get_listing or list_cities, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 by the enumerated filter dimensions and the constraint to Warsaw/Kraków active listings. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_listing or list_cities, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions beyond 'active.'

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