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 genuinely useful context beyond them: OSM provenance and ODbL licensing, the fact that fields are populated only "when known" (partial records), and that results are limited to permanent places rather than time-bound events.

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?

Front-loads the resource and scope before the use cases, and every clause carries information. The bilingual duplication carries some redundancy for a monolingual reader, but it is deliberate in a Polish-context tool and does not obscure the core statement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still summarizes them. Scope, data source, coverage holes and usage conditions are all covered; only pagination/limit behavior on the result set is left entirely to the schema.

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 municipality, voivodeship and limit are all documented, and the description adds nothing about their semantics beyond what the schema says (nominative case, disambiguation via voivodeship). Baseline 3 applies; the description does reinforce the municipality-only scope.

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 resource (permanent free-time places) with an explicit scope (one Polish municipality) and enumerates the covered kinds (cinemas, pools, museums, parks, playgrounds, bowling, escape rooms, zoos). It also names the returned fields, so an agent can tell it apart from the event-oriented siblings 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?

Gives concrete usage triggers ("what to do on a rainy day", "where to go with kids") and an explicit exclusion condition ("when no event fits"), which implicitly routes the agent away from search_events/get_event. It stops short of naming the sibling tools directly, so the routing is inferred rather than stated.

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