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

Beyond the safe read-only annotations, the description explains the returned estimate structure: middle half, 80% interval, confidence, justification sentence, and aggregated comparisons. It also discloses that a single number appears only at high confidence, area is estimated from building outline/floor count unless supplied, and the result is not a formal valuation.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the description is a dense, run-on Polish sentence with nested parentheses. Most content is relevant, yet the structure makes it harder to scan than necessary for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 a good job explaining the estimate's statistical output, confidence behavior, area estimation, and fallback to cena_obszaru. It is nearly complete, though the mention of 'pokaz_liczbe' is confusing because no such parameter appears in the input schema.

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 lat/lon, pow_m2, and budynek. The description mostly mirrors those meanings (area estimated from outline/floors unless provided; budynek or lat/lon) and adds the cena_obszaru fallback, but it does not add substantial parameter syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 (single-family house) and a specific operation (statistical price estimate). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling apartment/land estimation tools through the repeated 'domu jednorodzinnego' scope and mentions the building-card/report context.

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 by the house-specific scope, and it notes a fallback to typical area prices when no local model exists. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over siblings such as szacunek_mieszkania, szacunek_dzialki, ceny_obszaru, or raport.

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