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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and world-access semantics are covered. The description adds nothing beyond that structured data – no error behavior when the id does not exist, no note on what a missing/unknown budget item returns, no auth or scope 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?

It is a single short sentence fragment with zero filler and the key information front-loaded, so it is efficient. However, the terseness borders on under-specification – the brevity is bought at the cost of the parameter and behavior detail an agent would need.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter getter with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, so the bar is low, but the description still omits the id format, the behavior on a not-found id, and any hint about what the returned budget item contains. Those gaps matter for an agent that must construct a valid id.

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 0% and the single 'id' parameter is an untyped-format string with no constraints. 'Po id' only restates that an identifier is required; it gives no format, example, or source for that id (e.g. internal numeric id vs. a name slug), so the description fails to compensate for the empty schema documentation.

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 names a specific resource (a single budget item / 'pozycja budżetu') and the retrieval key ('po id'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the bulk sibling get_budzet and from the id-less search_* tools. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling as the alternative, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'po id' signals you need an identifier to call it, which is enough to infer this is the lookup-by-id counterpart to a listing tool. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so it does not clear the 4 bar.

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