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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns an 80/100 interval, a confidence level, comparisons, and a single number only at high confidence, and it clarifies the statistical rather than formal-valuation nature. It does not cover edge cases such as missing or conflicting location inputs.

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 in the opening phrase, and the remaining details about output and caveats are relevant. The Polish sentence is dense and run-on, but most clauses earn their place by describing return components and usage constraints. The English summary adds accessibility without much duplication.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so by naming the main estimate components, interval, confidence, justification, comparisons, and area reference. Combined with full parameter schema coverage and read-only annotations, this is close to complete. Minor gaps remain around behavior with no inputs or when both identifier and coordinates are provided.

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. The description adds useful routing detail by saying to provide either a plot identifier or coordinates, and that coordinates produce a typical local plot. It does not explain the optional pole parameter or precedence when both identifier and coordinates are supplied.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a statistical price estimate for a vacant residential plot. It also adds the important caveat that this is not a formal valuation. Sibling differentiation is mostly implicit through the property type, rather than by explicitly naming alternatives like szacunek_domu or ceny_obszaru.

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?

It tells the agent how to provide input, either an EGiB plot identifier or coordinates, and notes that coordinates imply a typical local plot. It also excludes formal valuation use. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as 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.