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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: only cells meeting the 6/6 threshold are published, lower counts appear as 'mniej niż 6', and urban plot data uses a 3–5 sale interval. This thresholding and suppression behavior is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot provide.

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 description is dense and front-loads the tool's scope and return content before the threshold caveat. The bilingual duplication effectively doubles the length, but it contains no filler and every sentence carries substantive information.

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 identify the returned statistics and threshold suppression, which is useful. However, it does not clarify response shape—such as whether multiple cells are returned, ordering, or behavior when the area cannot be resolved—leaving some gaps for an agent building a complete call expectation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly, including accepted formats for miejsce and choices for rodzaj, okres, and podzial. The description adds a threshold constraint relevant to interpreting okres results, but otherwise largely restates what the schema already provides.

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: price cells from the IleM² publication for municipalities, cities, districts, cadastral areas, or point hexagons, including the statistics returned (counts, median, quartiles). It is specific but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as szacunek_mieszkania or raport.

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?

The area-level scope implicitly signals that this tool is for looking up aggregate price statistics rather than valuing a single property, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to sibling tools. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the granularity described.

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