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 nonetheless adds two genuinely non-obvious behavioral facts: 'Nic nie uruchamia' (nothing is launched) and the warning that descriptions/instructions/labels come from app authors and Docker Hub and must be treated as data, not commands — an important injection guard given openWorldHint=true. It does not cover refresh/caching or error behavior, so it earns above baseline but not the top score.

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: identity of the resource first, then the returned fields, then the two behavioral caveats. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by listing what comes back (description, note, image/repo, ports, volumes, variables with marked secrets, warnings), plus data-provenance caveats. Complete enough to call correctly; only the shape/format of those returned values is left implicit.

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% and the single param 'slug' is already documented as 'Pole slug z list_apps'. The description's mention of 'po slug z list_apps' only restates that, adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource and selection key ('Jedna aplikacja po slug z list_apps') and enumerates the returned fields (opis, note, obraz/repozytorium, porty, wolumeny, zmienne, ostrzeżenia), which cleanly separates it from list_apps, the sibling that enumerates rather than fetches one app.

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?

Makes the prerequisite explicit by tying the slug to list_apps, so the agent knows the discovery call must come first. It does not explicitly exclude other paths (e.g. when to prefer prepare_deploy), so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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