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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations by disclosing the rolling 12-month window, EU-threshold limitation, seat-of-authority attribution caveat, the difference between category counters and the recent-notice list, and the warning that absence of tenders is not evidence of no investment. These are material behavioral limitations an agent must know before reporting results.

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 longer than average, but the length is justified by the data-source caveats and usage rules that cannot be safely omitted. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves through addressing, limitations, and cost in a logical order, though some parameter details are redundant with the schema.

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 the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job covering data sources, aggregation semantics, and known caveats. It references output elements like 'category counters' and 'recent-notice list' without fully specifying the return shape, but the essential interpretive context is present.

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 input schema already explains teryt formats, aggregation behavior, and the precedence rule. The description largely repeats these points rather than adding new parameter-level meaning; its only additional value is pointing to list_locations for finding codes.

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 and resource: it detects signals that a Polish municipality is about to build infrastructure, listing exact infrastructure types. It names the three data sources, making the tool's scope concrete and clearly distinct from the many transaction-focused sibling tools.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: address by location or teryt, with teryt taking precedence, and directs the agent to list_locations for finding codes. It also tells the agent to state known limits when reporting results. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but no sibling directly overlaps this tool's purpose.

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