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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the response is full-content Markdown, includes a title and a citation address, and blog articles additionally carry sources. It does not discuss failure modes for an unknown id, but for a read-only fetch this is solid added value.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the action and output format come first, then the accepted document kinds. The parenthetical enumeration of page kinds is somewhat dense but every clause carries information. No filler or repetition.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. The description still supplies the essentials an agent needs: what slice of content comes back, the Markdown format, the citation metadata, and the valid id forms. Nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is fully described, so the description carries no additional burden. It restates the same id forms (article slug, page path, or page URL) already enumerated in the schema, adding no new syntax or edge-case guidance. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the full document content (Markdown) for a search result id, and names the two content families it can return (blog article with sources, Integrator page). An agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'pobierz_artykul', which reads like an overlapping retrieve operation.

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 only implied: the id is described as coming 'z wyniku search', which signals this tool is the follow-up to a search call. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing and no mention of the alternatives (search, szukaj_artykulow, pobierz_artykul), so an agent must infer the routing itself.

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