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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses that default finishes are pre-included, that remove_finish_groups works only for groups with removable=true, that warnings can be returned and must be relayed, the per-design minimum rule, and a named error/retry path. It does not cover permission/auth needs, rate limits, or whether the call is purely non-mutating, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose and the schema-prerequisite come first, then parameter semantics, then the finish/warning handling. It is dense and somewhat run-on (two independent ideas packed into the final sentence), but almost every clause conveys a distinct rule an agent would otherwise get wrong, so little is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, yet the description still names the useful ones (net/gross price, currency, delivery time, matched product name/link). Combined with the usage and error guidance, an agent has nearly everything; the only real gap is the unexplained double_sided flag and no note on permissions or limits.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does for most: width/height units (mm), format_id vs size, the TOTAL-quantity semantics, the liczba_wzorow interaction with the minimum, pages scope and step rules, material_id requirement, and remove_finish_groups. double_sided is never explained, leaving one parameter opaque.

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 verb+resource ('Get a price quote for a barwa.pl product') and goes further to pin down semantics ('calculated by the same engine as the on-site calculator, so the price is identical'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling get_product_pricing_schema, which it explicitly names as a prerequisite rather than a substitute.

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?

Gives an explicit ordering rule ('Use get_product_pricing_schema first for valid option ids') plus conditional branch guidance: width/height for free-size vs format_id for predefined, pages only when the schema lists options.pages, material_id when material is required with no default. It even prescribes recovery behavior on the quantity_not_multiple error, so the agent knows both when and how to call.

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