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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description itself must disclose side effects. 'Utworzenie' correctly indicates a write operation, and 'ma pilnować warunku za Ciebie' hints at ongoing rule monitoring. However, the description does not state that the rule is persisted, what happens after creation, whether creation can fail, or what the response contains; the schema-level notes about blocked auto_execute and stale quotes are useful but parameter-scoped.

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 main description is a single, front-loaded sentence that identifies the action and resource with minimal waste. It is concise, though it misses an opportunity to add a sentence about usage or behavior; the heavier explanatory burden is correctly delegated to the input 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?

Given the complexity of the 5-parameter nested schema, the detailed schema descriptions carry most of the contextual weight. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the tool returns, whether creation is idempotent, or whether any authorization or persistence semantics apply, leaving some gaps for an agent invoking the tool.

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 even though the main tool description adds no parameter semantics. The schema itself provides very detailed and helpful descriptions for trigger and action, so the agent can construct valid payloads, but the tool description itself does not contribute additional parameter meaning.

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 clearly states the verb 'Utworzenie' (create) and the resource 'reguły decyzyjnej' (decision rule), adding the high-level purpose of watching a condition. It is specific enough to distinguish creation from listing, updating, or deleting decision rules, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with another tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_decision_rule, delete_decision_rule, or list_decision_rules. The only usage-related guidance appears inside the trigger parameter description, which discusses choosing trigger kinds, but that is parameter-level rather than tool-selection guidance.

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