ceny-nieruchomosci-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope about returned metadata (origins, licence, caveats) but no auth, rate-limit, or format details; adequate given the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. It is a sentence fragment rather than a full sentence, but it is efficient and appropriately sized.

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 zero-parameter, read-only metadata tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently names the content an agent should expect. Return formatting is unspecified, but the tool's complexity is low enough that this is a minor gap.

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?

There are no parameters and the schema is empty, so no parameter semantics are needed. Per the rubric, zero parameters yields a baseline of 4.

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 what the tool provides — data origins, licence, and caveats — which distinguishes it by content from find_address and property_prices. It lacks a specific verb and does not explicitly name siblings, 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions are provided. The description only implies the tool is for metadata about data sources, leaving the agent to infer context.

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=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-lookup profile is covered. The description adds useful provenance (official GUGiK address register), but says nothing about failure behavior when no match is found, so it adds only modest context.

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 tight sentences that front-load the action and output before the use case; no filler and nothing is buried.

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-parameter geocoder with no output schema, the description covers both input shape and the returned value (coordinates) and notes the authoritative source. It stops short of describing no-match behavior or the coordinate format an agent could expect.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema's example by clarifying accepted input granularity (address, street, or town), which meaningfully shapes how an agent formats queries.

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 verb (resolve) and resource (Polish address, street or town) with the output (coordinates) and the backing source (GUGiK register). It touches the sibling property_prices but does not contrast itself against data_sources, so differentiation is partial rather than explicit.

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?

Offers one motivating use case (checking which place property_prices will use), which implies when the tool is relevant, but gives no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives for choosing it over data_sources or property_prices.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the authoritative source (notarial deeds, official registry) and the shape of the return (median per m², IQR, typical total price/area, room breakdown, trend, recent transactions). No auth or rate-limit notes, but the return disclosure is genuinely useful.

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?

Front-loaded with the substantive capability and return contents in one dense sentence, followed by a compact place-format primer. No filler. The trailing 'place:' fragment is slightly list-like but earns its place by disambiguating the required input syntax.

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 9-parameter, 1-required read tool with no output schema, the description covers source, return contents, and the tricky required parameter's syntax. Enum meanings (kind, market) and defaults live in the schema, which is at 100% coverage, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema for the required 'place' parameter by giving concrete accepted formats ("Poznań, Garbary 10", "Kraków, Długa", "Swarzędz", "lat,lon"), which is the highest-value parameter guidance an agent needs here.

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 verb+resource (actual sale prices of flats, houses, plots) with a named data source (notarial deeds / Rejestr Cen Nieruchomości) and geography (Poland). An agent can distinguish this from find_address and data_sources without opening a schema.

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 have a location, you want transaction prices), and the place-format examples imply the required input. However, it never states when to prefer this over find_address or data_sources, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Adequate but no explicit routing.

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