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 and the bar is lower. The description adds nothing beyond that — no pagination behavior, no result ordering, no indication of how many records a limit returns or how filters combine. For an open-world search endpoint, that is a real gap.

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 compact and front-loads the entity scope before the filter list, with zero filler. But the terseness crosses into under-specification — the telegram style of naming filters without meanings is not economy, it is omission.

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?

Five parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations describing returns mean the description should carry far more weight than it does. An agent cannot tell what a result record looks like, what format voj or teryt expect, or how limit interacts with matching. Given the tool's complexity, this is inadequate.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description bears full responsibility for explaining the five parameters. It merely repeats the parameter names ("Filtry: office_type, q, voj, teryt, limit") without defining any of them — "q", "voj" (voivodeship?), and "teryt" (TERYT code?) are opaque to an agent without Polish administrative knowledge. Listing names already present in the schema adds no value.

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 domain ("Urzędy: sąd, prokuratura, policja") which does align with the tool name szukaj_komisariat and hints at a broader office lookup than just police stations. However, it never states the verb or outcome — no "search for offices matching filters" — so the agent must infer that this returns matching offices. It also gives no differentiation from siblings like get_sad, get_prokurator, or search_administracja, which cover overlapping entities.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives, even though sibling tools get_sad and get_prokurator clearly overlap with two of the three listed office types. The filter list implies a filtered lookup but does not tell the agent when this tool is preferable to the entity-specific getters.

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