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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what comes back (gmina, obręb, location, parcel-page link), but says nothing about behavior when the number is malformed or the parcel does not exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the action, the required key, an example, and the returned fields. The trailing list after the colon is slightly ambiguous as to whether it describes the number's components or the response, which is minor friction.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the read-only profile, the essentials are covered for a one-parameter lookup. However, no failure mode or alternative-routing guidance is given, which matters for a sibling set containing find_parcel_at_point.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only constrains length (3-60 chars), so the description carries the load and does so usefully by supplying a concrete example format (101710_2.0007.1504/6). It stops short of decomposing the identifier segments, leaving some parsing inference to the agent.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Znajdź działkę') and pins the lookup key to a full cadastral number ('pełny numer ewidencyjny'), which implicitly separates it from find_parcel_at_point's spatial lookup. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus find_parcel_at_point, get_parcel_overview, or get_parcel_section. The only usable hint is that a complete identifier is required, which the agent must infer from 'pełny numer'.

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