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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no result shape, no pagination/default-limit behavior, no ordering, and no indication of how filters combine (AND vs OR).

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 fragments with no filler and the resource front-loaded, which is good. However the terseness is achieved by omission rather than by efficiency, and the telegram style gives the agent no structure for interpreting the filter list.

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 four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of filter interaction or defaults, the definition is too thin for a search tool. An agent can form a call but cannot predict or interpret the result.

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 must carry the burden, and it does not. It merely repeats the four parameter names as "Filtry" without saying what query matches (title? transcript?), what topic values look like, whether term is a Sejm term number, or the default/max for limit.

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 the resource ("Głosowania Sejmu") and enumerates filters, so an agent can infer a filtered search over parliamentary votings. But there is no verb and no differentiation from siblings such as get_glosowanie or get_glosowanie_razem, so the agent must guess how this differs from a single-voting lookup.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: it never says to prefer this over get_glosowanie (by-id) or get_glosowanie_razem (aggregate), nor what happens with zero filters. The only hint is the word "Filtry", which implies searching but not when.

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