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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds value beyond them: it discloses the exact result shape (title, address, summary, date) and the empty-query fallback to latest articles, which the agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Three short sentences that front-load the core purpose and then the return shape and edge case; nothing is redundant. The parenthetical topic list is long but earns its place as query-term guidance.

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?

For a 2-parameter, zero-required read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, result fields, and the empty-query case. No output schema exists, but the return values are described inline, so an agent has everything needed 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 both zapytanie and limit are already documented with examples and bounds. The description's topic list gives some hint about what query terms work, but adds no syntax, matching behavior, or limit semantics beyond the schema — 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: searching articles on the commerceos.pl blog, with concrete topic areas (BaseLinkera migration, KSeF, Allegro automations, etc.). It also lists the returned fields (title, url, summary, date), which implicitly separates it from the sibling pobierz_artykul that would fetch full content, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implied by the topic list and the note that an empty query returns the newest articles, which is a real usage rule. However, it never states when to prefer this over pobierz_artykul, fetch, or search, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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