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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the return contract ('Zwraca tytuly i adresy stron') that the agent cannot see from any schema. The disclaimer block clarifies the informational scope of the data but is partly boilerplate legal text.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and informative, but three of the five sentences are repetitive legal disclaimers ('informacyjny i edukacyjny', 'NIE stanowią porady', 'nie rokuje przyszłych cen'), which dilute rather than serve tool selection.

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 correctly compensates by explaining that only titles and URLs are returned. Combined with read-only annotations and zero required parameters, an agent has enough to call it correctly; the missing piece is an explicit pointer to read_knowledge for fetching page content.

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 67%: the 'typ' enum and 'query' already carry inline examples and aliases, while 'limit' is undocumented in both places. The description adds no additional parameter meaning (no guidance on combining query with typ or on default limit), so 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 names a specific resource set (przewodniki, FAQ, słownik pojęć, artykuły) scoped to investment metals and states the return shape (titles and page URLs). It implicitly separates itself from a content-reading tool by saying 'tresc czytaj pod linkiem', though it never names read_knowledge 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 only implied: the phrase 'tresc czytaj pod linkiem' hints that this is a discovery step before reading a full page. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over read_knowledge or search_products, and no exclusion of product/price lookups that the sibling tools cover.

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