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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool creates an external document, returns a short link, calculates line values as quantity × unit price, and gives free PDF access. This is meaningful beyond the annotations, though it does not mention persistence or side effects in detail.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the main action and result, with no filler. The keyword 'Use for' list is slightly repetitive but earns its place by supporting multilingual and synonym-based agent selection.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description appropriately specifies the return value as a short link and the user workflow. Combined with the schema's required fields and item structure, an agent can call the tool correctly, though optional behavior like default unit price could be slightly 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 75%, so the description does not need to compensate heavily. It adds global context by stating prices are in PLN and line values are exactly quantity × unit price, which clarifies unit_price_pln and quantity semantics. It does not explain optional parameter defaults or edge cases beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly that it creates a Polish WZ goods issue note on kras-trans.eu and returns a short link for review, print, or PDF download. The verb, resource, and platform make the purpose concrete and distinct from sibling tools like CMR or interest notes.

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?

Provides an explicit 'Use for' list covering Polish and English terms for WZ documents, which helps an agent recognize when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives such as CMR, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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