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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds real domain behavior: KYC/AML verification is required to finalize a purchase, the agent must not finalize transactions, delivery_mode 'skarbiec_ch' means vault-only release with no shipping or pickup, and withdrawal rights are excluded for listed goods (art. 38). The only weakness is the closing block of legal boilerplate that restates disclaimers.

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 sentence is dense and well front-loaded with the returned data set, but the paragraph then runs on into compliance/legal boilerplate, with several near-redundant sentences ('Dane mają charakter informacyjny...', 'NIE stanowią porady inwestycyjnej...', 'nie rokuje przyszłych cen'). The useful information is buried in a single unstructured block.

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 carries the burden of explaining return content and does so thoroughly, enumerating attribute groups, the two price models with their lead times, availability, and delivery mode. Compliance context is also covered; only currency/price-timestamp semantics remain unaddressed.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema, including the currency enum. The description only echoes the SKU-or-handle duality already present in the 'ref' parameter description and adds nothing about currency handling or price-day assumptions (7–10 days vs 24–48 h), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource plus lookup key: 'Pełne dane produktu po SKU lub handle', then enumerates the returned domains (attributes, live price, spot price, availability, delivery_mode, listing status, withdrawal right, VAT status). This clearly separates it functionally from narrower siblings such as get_live_price or check_availability, though none of them 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 rather than stated: fetch full product detail by SKU/handle, and note that the agent does not finalize transactions. There is no explicit routing like 'use search_products to find a SKU first' or 'use get_live_price if you only need the price', so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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