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 nothing beyond the required parameter: it does not say whether multiple declarations over time are returned, whether results can be empty, or how the data is sourced.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the resource identification comes first. It is appropriately sized for what it attempts, though brevity here reflects under-specification rather than discipline.

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?

A single-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations explaining returns still needs the ID format and a hint at what a declaration record contains. Neither is present, leaving the agent unable to construct a correct call from the description alone.

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%, so the description would need to explain the person_id format (name? ID number? internal identifier?). Instead it merely restates that person_id is required, adding no semantics over the schema's 'required' list.

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 clarifies that 'oswiadczenia' means asset declarations belonging to a person, which is real information beyond the tool name alone. It states the resource and its subject clearly, but offers no differentiation from siblings such as get_posel or get_dlug, which also operate on a person.

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?

Only a parameter requirement ('Wymaga person_id') is given; that is a constraint, not guidance. There is no statement of when to call this instead of another per-person tool like get_posel, get_nominacje, or get_manifest.

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