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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return content: each vendor's price-list URL and the date the price was verified, giving the agent freshness context for citing 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?

A single dense sentence with purpose first and return content second; no filler. It is slightly information-packed but every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming what is returned (price-list addresses and verification dates). For a read-only, fully documented 3-parameter tool this is nearly sufficient; only the output shape (e.g. whether all four vendors always appear, currency) is left implicit.

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 the schema already explains all three parameters, including the 'oferty' threshold rule. The description references only orders and channels, omitting 'oferty', so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Porównuje') plus the four exact products being compared and the inputs that drive the comparison. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like cennik_integratora (single price list) or oblicz_oszczednosc (savings) without opening the schema.

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?

The description implies the comparison use case ('przy podanej liczbie zamówień i kanałów sprzedaży') but never states when to pick this over oblicz_oszczednosc or cennik_integratora, nor any exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and sibling set.

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