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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and data-origin semantics are covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the official-source authority (IMGW-PIB), the geographic resolution rule (county/powiat), and the warning categories returned. It does not state data freshness/update cadence or result size, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clauses: what it is, how `place` changes behavior, and the plan_journey relationship. Front-loaded with the resource identity and free of filler.

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 single-optional-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, source, geographic granularity, and hazard coverage. Only gaps are the shape/freshness of the returned warning data, which an agent might want when deciding whether to surface results directly.

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 the `place` format ('lat,lon') is already documented; baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what the parameter resolves to — the county (powiat) the place belongs to — which the schema's terse 'Town, station or lat,lon' does not convey.

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: official IMGW-PIB meteorological and flood warnings for Poland, with enumerated hazard types (storm, wind, frost, heat, snow, ice). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling plan_journey by explaining that plan_journey already attaches start/destination warnings.

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?

Explicit conditional routing: with `place` you get county-level (powiat) warnings, without it you get a national overview. It additionally flags the overlap with plan_journey, telling the agent when this tool is redundant, which is exactly the alternative-selection guidance most definitions lack.

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