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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing what comes back — candidate type, label, the `cel` parameter and page/PDF links — which is essential since no output schema exists. It does not say what happens with zero or many matches.

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 core information is front-loaded and useful, but the definition is bilingual and the English sentence largely repeats the Polish one while dropping detail, so a portion of the text is redundant rather than additive.

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?

Given one input, no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers input formats and return contents well enough to call the tool correctly. The remaining gap is the outcome when a query is ambiguous or matches nothing, which matters for a candidate-resolution tool.

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?

With a single fully documented parameter the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by spelling out the EGiB id example format (120617_2.0018.927/87) and the 'szerokość, długość' coordinate convention, which the schema only alludes to.

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 concrete transformation: address / EGiB parcel id / coordinates into report candidates, and enumerates the returned fields (rodzaj, etykieta, cel, links). That is far more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of a 5 because it never names a sibling explicitly (e.g. `raport` as the consumer) even though 'kandydatów do raportu' hints at the pipeline.

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 rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the lookup step that feeds `raport`, and the accepted input shapes are listed. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among siblings such as `raport` or the `szacunek_*` tools.

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