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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral context unattainable from annotations: prices come only from statistics with a threshold, never individual transactions; distances are measured on walking/road networks rather than straight-line; peak-hour transit commute; catchment boundaries only where the municipality publishes them. These are meaningful constraints on interpretation of results.

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 content is packed very densely, but it is highly front-loaded (purpose first, then behavior, then caveats) and every clause adds value; the bilingual duplication is a minor format choice, not filler.

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 returns — and it does: sections with signals and sources, plus links to page, PDF and JSON, and the note that 'szczegoly' yields a larger response. The report's scope is fully articulated; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 enum-like 'cel' syntax (dz:/bud:/pkt:/URL) and the 'sekcje'/'szczegoly' semantics are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of sections and detail volume echoes but does not extend that. 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?

States a specific artifact — an IleM² report for a parcel, residential building, or point — and enumerates what it contains (five answers, sections, signals, sources, page/PDF/JSON links). This distinguishes it from the pure estimation siblings (szacunek_*) and area pricing (ceny_obszaru), though it never explicitly contrasts with the overlapping raport_biznes sibling.

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?

Implicitly scopes usage to reports about a specific parcel/building/point, but gives no explicit 'use this instead of X when...' guidance, no prerequisites, and does not tell the agent when to prefer szacunek_dzialki or raport_biznes over this.

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