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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks it safe, and the description adds key behavioral context beyond that: the tool is currently unavailable and returns only a postponement notice rather than an actual order book. This is valuable, non-obvious disclosure. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler. It promptly states the resource and the crucial caveat, though it could arguably provide a bit more structured context like an availability note or alternative reference.

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 simple, one-parameter, read-only placeholder tool, the description is adequately complete: it says what the tool would provide, that it is currently unavailable, and what it returns instead. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the explicit mention of the postponement notice.

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 parameter 'series' is already documented with an example. The tool description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the schema carries the full burden; baseline 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 clearly identifies the resource ('Arkusz zleceń dla obligacji' – bond order book) and states the current behavior ('zwraca informację o odroczeniu' – returns postponement notice). It is specific enough to distinguish from the many other get_* tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 on when to call this tool versus alternatives. The description only notes that it is currently unavailable, but does not suggest an alternative tool or any context in which this stub should be used.

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