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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns information and lists the types of data included, but it does not disclose behavior such as default section handling, authentication requirements, or error behavior. The description adds some context beyond the purpose but is minimal for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that starts with the verb and resource, then packs the key details into a parenthetical. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary filler.

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 no output schema, the description lists the return content explicitly (plans, prices, features, download URLs, purchase links), which is sufficient for a simple read-only tool. It is complete enough for the agent to understand what information will be retrieved, though it could mention the default section behavior.

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%, with the one parameter (section) having an enum and a clear description including the default. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('product and pricing info') and explicitly names the products (Faktura VAT 2026, Mobilna Faktura) and content (plans, prices in PLN, features, download URLs, purchase links). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like compare_editions, get_faq, and get_ksef_info.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever product/pricing information for these specific products is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the focused scope and sibling list make the intended usage evident.

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