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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does: it states the price is identical to the on-site calculator, lists the returned fields (net/gross, currency, delivery time, product name/link), explains the quantity minimum per design, pages constraints, and material requirement. This goes beyond schema and provides explicit behavioral expectations.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose, output, usage guidance, then parameter details. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds value. It is long, but for 10 parameters it is justified; slight trimming could improve conciseness without losing critical information.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return structure), the description is quite complete. It covers key parameter constraints, usage order, and special cases. Some minor gaps exist (e.g., does not mention finishes or double_sided), but these are less critical and the description is sufficient for an agent to make a correct call.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It explains width/height vs format_id semantics, quantity as total run with per-design minimum, liczba_wzorow interaction, pages only when schema lists options.pages, and material_id requirement. It does not explicitly describe finishes, double_sided, or product_slug, but these are straightforward or have defaults, so the description is mostly adequate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a price quote for a barwa.pl product.' It specifies the resource (barwa.pl product) and the action (getting a price quote). It also differentiates itself from siblings by mentioning the exact output (net/gross price, currency, delivery time) and the calculation engine, making it distinct from get_product_pricing_schema and others.

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 explicitly instructs to use get_product_pricing_schema first for valid option ids, and provides conditional guidance for width/height vs format_id, material requirement, and pages constraints. It does not compare to all siblings (e.g., get_shipping_info) but gives clear contextual use cases and prerequisites.

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