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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the model excludes (no subscription, no per-order fees) and that results mirror the website calculator, but says nothing about precision, rounding, currency, or the >50000-order cut-off (which lives only in the schema).

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 opens with the verb and enumerates the outputs, followed by one short trust clause tying it to the site calculator. Dense but no sentence is wasted; the parenthetical about BaseLinker naming is genuinely useful for disambiguation.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so explicitly: monthly cost, monthly and annual savings, and payback on the implementation package. Gaps remain around units/currency of the returned figures and the upper-bound handling, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%, so every parameter, including the enum meanings and the 'bez wartości' defaulting behavior for oferty and pakiet_wdrozenia, is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 computation: the monthly cost of the current integrator (Base.com/BaseLinker, Apilo, Sellasist) versus Commerce OS Integrator maintenance, plus monthly/annual savings and implementation-package payback. That is enough to tell it apart from siblings like porownaj_integratory or cennik_integratora, but the difference is left implicit rather than stated.

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: an agent can infer this is the 'compute my savings' tool while cennik_integratora is the price list, but the description never says so or when not to call it. There are no preconditions or exclusions named, and 'te same wyliczenia co kalkulator na stronie' is context, not routing guidance.

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