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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states what is returned (matching entries with links to official docs) and documents the empty-query edge case. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or whether the operation is strictly read-only, but the search/return framing makes the core behavior clear.

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?

Three short sentences cover purpose, output, and default behavior with no filler. The most important scoping information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple search with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the catalog, query behavior, filters, and return content. Minor omissions such as result count, pagination, or explicit routing to a sibling tool prevent a perfect score.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that an empty query returns the entire catalog and that scope or topic can narrow results, which maps directly to zasieg and temat. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Search otwarteAPI.pl, a catalog of public Polish and EU APIs." It names the catalog's contents and explicitly says it returns matching entries with official documentation links, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that check specific NIPs, REGONs, or accounts.

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 clear context for use: it supports natural-language queries and can also return the whole catalog when the query is empty, optionally narrowed by scope or topic. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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