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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does this well by explaining the search behavior, the exact output fields, and the empty-query behavior (returns entire catalog, optionally filtered). It does not mention potential side effects (likely none) or error handling, but for a read-only catalog search this is adequate.

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?

The description is composed of three dense, purposeful sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by output details and edge-case behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it concise yet informative.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description should ideally explain the return structure more thoroughly. It mentions the key fields of returned entries but does not specify the response format (e.g., JSON array), ordering, pagination beyond the 'limit' parameter, or error behavior. This leaves some gaps, though the tool is simple enough that the description is arguably sufficient.

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?

The schema already provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as mentioning that filters can narrow the empty-query result. It does not elaborate on parameter syntax or provide new context beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Przeszukuje' – searches) and specific resource (openAPI.pl catalog of official public APIs). It also enumerates the returned fields (link, jurisdiction, auth type, format), making the tool's purpose unambiguous even without sibling tools.

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 implies when to use the tool (searching for public APIs) and notes that an empty query returns the whole catalog, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Since no sibling tools exist, the lack of explicit alternates is understandable, but the guidance is still mostly implicit.

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