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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no indication of result size, whether filters combine with AND or OR, ranking behavior, or what an empty result means for a search over an open-world dataset.

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 short and front-loaded, with the resource named first. But the second sentence spends its length re-enumerating parameter names already visible in the schema rather than adding information, so the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 description ought to convey more about what comes back and how filters behave on a six-parameter open-world search. The name-plus-filter-list is not enough to call the tool confidently.

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% across six parameters, so the schema provides only names and types. The description merely re-lists those same names as "Filtry", without explaining what a topic is versus a category, what klub or posel_id refer to (political club? MP identifier?), or how limit interacts with the query.

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?

"Cytaty polityków" identifies the resource returned (politicians' quotes), and the second clause indicates it is a filtered lookup. However, no verb is stated explicitly and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like search_kasta or search_poslowie, so an agent gets the topic but not the specific capability.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never mentions an alternative among the many sibling search/get tools. The agent must infer from the name alone when this tool is the right choice.

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