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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the API source, the default sort by shortest wait, the caveat that forecasts are not bookings, and the keying by NIP. It does not mention rate limits or paging behavior beyond the limit 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?

The single dense paragraph puts the core purpose first, then the returned fields, then the filters and data source. It is appropriately sized for a tool with six parameters. The middle sentence that lists result attributes is long, but each item it lists is meaningful.

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, so the burden is on the description; this description fully covers it by listing the returned attributes (forecast for stable and urgent cases, people waiting, average wait, address, phone, pediatric accessibility). It also notes that the data is keyed by NIP and sorted by shortest wait, which leaves no material gap for correct invocation.

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 coverage sets the baseline at 3. The description still adds meaning: it explains the 'service' filter with example fragments and describes the town filter and the preference for NIP. It also explains how to identify the company when KRS or NIP is unknown, going 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Get NFZ waiting lists of a healthcare provider') and enumerates the covered service types and per-location data fields. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_company_nfz_contracts, which covers contracts rather than waiting lists.

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?

It states the data source ('NFZ Terminy leczenia API'), which is useful for trust, and the warning that 'the forecast is not a booking' defines the intended use. It also says that a company can be identified by name, KRS, or NIP. However, it does not explicitly exclude any scenario or name a sibling tool as the alternative when waiting-list data is unavailable.

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