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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real semantics beyond that: what each status means in fulfillment terms and that 'skarbiec_ch' restricts release to the Loomis vault (CH).

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-loaded with the status vocabulary the agent needs, and the warning about the shipping-vs-payment deadline earns its place as a real disambiguation. Phrasing is dense and slightly telegraphic but not padded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description only partially fills that gap by naming the status values; it doesn't state the response shape or how the currency parameter affects the result. Adequate for a simple read-only lookup, but leaving gaps.

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 only 50%: 'sku' has no schema description, and 'waluta' is documented only in the schema. The description mentions SKU only implicitly and says nothing about why a currency parameter matters for an availability check, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (product availability by SKU) and enumerates the exact status values it returns ('od ręki / na zamówienie / skarbiec CH'), so an agent knows precisely what it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as get_product, which might also surface stock state.

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 (check stock state before ordering) and the description usefully disambiguates '24–48 h shipping' from the 24-hour payment deadline, but it never states when to call this versus get_product or when not to call it.

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