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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content-level context — that the response includes asking-price summaries, a market sentence, development stage and links — which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about ordering, fallback when an area is unknown, or result completeness.

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 two compact sentences with the core resource front-loaded in the Polish sentence and a condensed English restatement. The bilingual duplication costs some space but is a deliberate pattern; every clause (cenniki, zdanie o rynku, ceny ofertowe, etap, linki) carries 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 usefully sketches what comes back: asking-price summaries, a market comment, and a list with prices, stage and links. Combined with annotations covering the read-only, closed-world profile and a fully documented schema, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only edge-case behavior (unknown area, empty result) is 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit (1–20, default 10), obszar (name/slug/TERYT) and pokoje. The description adds a small amount by broadening obszar to include gmina, miasto, powiat, województwo and dzielnica, which the schema only hints at, but it says nothing about limit or the pokoje filter.

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 verb+resource: it returns developer developments in a given area, including price summaries, a market comment, and a list of investments with asking prices, stage and links. The scope is concrete and the enumerated area types (gmina, miasto, powiat, województwo, dzielnica) make it distinguishable from ceny_obszaru or the szacunek_* valuation tools, but no sibling 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 only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for browsing new developments in a location, but the description never states when to prefer it over ceny_obszaru (area price statistics) or znajdz_nieruchomosc (searching individual listings). No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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