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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is covered, but the description adds no behavioral detail such as what output is produced, how outcomes are judged, or how externalId and dateIso interact. The vague phrase 'co wyszło, a co nie' is not a concrete behavioral contract.

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 short and free of filler, but it is under-specified and colloquial rather than a clean structured statement. It earns its place but does not front-load a precise action or object.

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 tool with four optional parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance, a single vague sentence is insufficient. The agent is left without information on return values, parameter selection, or when this tool is appropriate, and the dateIso contradiction adds confusion.

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, but the description actively conflicts with the schema: it says 'single transaction' while dateIso says 'analyze all trades on that day.' It adds no meaning beyond the schema and misleads about scope.

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 'Rozliczenie pojedynczej transakcji: co wyszło, a co nie' indicates the tool evaluates a trade outcome, but it is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement and does not distinguish it from siblings like get_realized_pnl or get_evaluation_outcomes. It also narrows scope to a 'single transaction' even though the dateIso parameter explicitly supports analyzing all trades on a day.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools; there is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or typical use cases. The only implied context is 'single transaction,' which is contradicted by the dateIso parameter.

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