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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds real value by enumerating the sections returned (treść, 'W skrócie', FAQ, źródła z datą, powiązane artykuły) and by equating the result with the article's .md URL, which lets the agent predict the payload shape.

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?

Two sentences: the return value and its structure first, the required input second. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema except the input hint, which earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing every section the Markdown contains. With one documented parameter and annotations covering the safety profile, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 property description already gives both accepted forms with an example, so the description can only add the provenance hint ('z szukaj_artykulow'). That is marginal beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Zwraca pełny artykuł z bloga commerceos.pl') plus the exact output format (Markdown). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling szukaj_artykulow, which only produces the slug/URL this tool consumes.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to szukaj_artykulow as the source of the accepted input ('Podaj slug albo adres artykułu z szukaj_artykulow'), giving a clear workflow. It stops short of stating when not to use it or what happens with an invalid slug.

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