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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses cost (1 token) and three substantive data caveats: coverage limited to below-EU-threshold contracts, attribution by contracting authority seat rather than works location, and the critical warning that absence of tenders is not evidence of no investment. That last point prevents a specific, likely reasoning error and is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the caveat block is dense but each clause carries real information (threshold limits, seat attribution, false-negative risk, cost). It is a long single block rather than separated reporting instructions, which makes it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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?

With no output schema, the description does most of the work and even hints at the response shape ('counters include municipal authorities only while the notice list shows every authority with a flag'). It does not state what happens when neither teryt nor location is supplied (both parameters are optional), which is the one gap an agent could stumble on.

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%, and the schema already explains the TERYT digit-length conventions, the teryt-over-location precedence, and name-resolution fallbacks. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Signals that a Polish municipality is about to build infrastructure') and enumerates the three underlying sources, which is far more specific than the title alone. It does not, however, contrast itself with nearby siblings such as get_permits_in_area or get_transaction_permits, so an agent must infer the boundary from the sources listed.

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?

Usage is implied by the three-source framing and the 'State these limits when reporting' directive, which tells the agent how to present results. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for a caller who actually wants permit or transaction records rather than a forward-looking signal.

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