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 value by enumerating some returned attributes (attendance, salary, email, club), but says nothing about behavior when the id does not exist, error responses, or data freshness.

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 compact, front-loaded sentence with the resource and lookup key first and the useful field hints in parentheses. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness leaves real gaps unaddressed.

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?

With no output schema, the brief field list is helpful, and the annotations cover the read-only profile. However, the id's provenance and failure behavior are left undocumented, which for a single-record getter by opaque id is a meaningful omission.

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 parameter has no description there, so the description must compensate. It only says "po id" without clarifying the id's type, format, or where to obtain it (presumably from search_poslowie), which is the most consequential ambiguity for a lookup tool.

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?

Names a specific resource and scope: a single MP ("Pojedynczy poseł") retrieved by id, and it even hints at the payload (attendance, salary, email, club). The word "Pojedynczy" implicitly separates it from the search_poslowie sibling, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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: fetch one record when you already have its id. There is no statement of when to prefer this over search_poslowie or what to do when the id is unknown or invalid.

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