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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the price has a validity window, must be refetched after expiry, and the 24h term does not imply a price guarantee. This materially changes how an agent should use the result and is not visible from the schema or 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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the subsequent sentences add valuable caveats without padding. The phrasing 'cena od (7-10 dni) i cena 24h jeśli od ręki' is slightly dense and colloquial, but overall the description is compact and well-ordered.

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 does a good job of listing the main returned information: current price, validity markers, and delivery cost. It does not describe the response shape, error cases for unknown SKUs or unsupported currencies, or the role of ilosc, leaving some gaps for an agent that needs to fully interpret the result.

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?

The description explicitly covers sku and waluta, explaining that the price is for a product SKU and in a chosen currency. However, it does not explain the ilosc parameter at all, and since schema description coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter semantics.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as a product identified by SKU and the action as retrieving a current price in a selected currency. It also lists returned components such as validity timestamps and delivery cost, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_buyback_price or get_product.

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?

It provides clear operational guidance: after cena_wazna_do the price is stale and must be refetched before showing to a customer, and a 24h payment term is not a price guarantee. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or saying when not to use this tool, so it loses the top score.

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