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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds worthwhile scope context (which products, versions, and currencies are covered), but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, response shape, or whether 'all' is the default section. The additions are moderate, not rich.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and packs the key scope details (products, versions, pricing currency, download and purchase resources) with no filler. Every phrase earns its place, and it is easily scannable by an agent.

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 read-only retrieval tool with one optional enum parameter and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what data is returned, for which products, and even notes the currency. Minor gaps remain: it does not mention that the 'section' parameter exists or that 'all' is the default, though the schema covers this. An output schema is absent, so a bit more detail on return structure could help, but the description already lists the result categories.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not explicitly reference the 'section' parameter, but the schema's own enum and descriptions are sufficient. The description's listing of content types loosely maps to what 'all' returns, but it adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('product and pricing info for Faktura VAT ... and Mobilna Faktura'), and it enumerates concrete content categories: plans, prices in PLN, download URLs, purchase links. This makes it obvious what the tool provides and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_faq or get_ksef_info without needing to open schemas.

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 usage context: this is the tool for product/pricing information. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. With sibling tools covering FAQ, KSeF, comparisons, and knowledge base, the intended scope is inferable but not explicitly guided.

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