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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), it discloses that prices are indicative and bucketed, depend on metal/type/weight but not on mint, and that a binding valuation requires contacting IDFMETALE. Useful, non-obvious behavior; the score is not 5 because a large share of the text is legal/educational boilerplate rather than tool behavior.

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?

The first three sentences are front-loaded and earn their place, but the closing disclaimer block is long, repetitive ('Dane mają charakter informacyjny...', 'NIE stanowią porady inwestycyjnej', 'nie rokuje przyszłych cen') and dilutes the operational content.

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 read-only lookup with a complete schema and annotations, the description covers the essentials: no-parameter default, the bucketed/indicative nature of the price, and the non-binding caveat. It only marginally describes the returned price-list structure, which is acceptable given there is no output 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 coverage is 100% and the enums already document the accepted values, so baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by framing the three optional parameters as filters for an estimate and by clarifying that no mint parameter exists because mint does not affect the quoted price.

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+resource: buyback ('SKUP') prices for gold and silver and the direction of payment (IDFMETALE pays the client). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_live_price, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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 explicit invocation guidance: pass metal, form and unit mass for an estimate, or omit all parameters to get the full buyback price list. It also names the alternative (get_live_price) and the condition that selects it (sale price), leaving nothing to inference.

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