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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: query results include all parent levels, a name resolves to county level while teryt wins when both are given, and cost is 1 token. This goes well beyond the annotation signal.

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 long but each sentence earns its place: source, indicator scope, addressing rules, hierarchy behavior, and filtering options. Critical constraints are front-loaded, and no filler or repeated schema text is present.

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 flexible read-only lookup with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what data comes back, how to specify a location, how to get finer geographic levels, how to filter by category, and how to request a time series. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit parent-level return behavior.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value: it explains teryt digit-level resolution, the 7th digit unit-type meaning, the precedence of teryt over location, parent-level expansion, and the year vs yearFrom/yearTo semantics. This materially helps an agent choose and combine parameters correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: it returns demographic, economic, housing, and other local statistics for a Polish location from GUS BDL, with ~50 indicators across 11 categories. This distinguishes it clearly from the many transaction, parcel, and pricing siblings.

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 gives practical routing guidance: use list_locations to find TERYT codes, pass a 6/7-digit teryt for gmina-level data, and note that neighborhoods/osiedla are NOT addressable here. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like compare_locations or get_market_overview, but the domain is clear enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate.

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