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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the time horizons returned (last week, month, year) and that a price-map link is included, which tells the agent what a call yields.

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 well-formed sentence with the resource and metric front-loaded, followed by the scope and the return contents. No padding or redundancy.

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 one optional parameter, annotations covering safety and an output schema handling return shape, the description supplies what is missing: scope granularity and time windows. The one residual gap is that it does not state the 'Polska' default explicitly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden — and it does: it clarifies that the single 'region' argument accepts either the whole country or one voivodeship, which is exactly the semantics the bare schema lacks. It stops short of naming accepted values or confirming the default, keeping it off a 5.

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 and metric ('ceny działek budowlanych' – prices of building plots) and a specific scope (all of Poland or a single voivodeship), so an agent can tell this is a regional price-trend tool. It implicitly contrasts with the municipality-level sibling get_municipality_market but never names it, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

The phrase 'w całej Polsce albo w jednym województwie' implies the granularity at which this tool operates and thus when it is the right choice over a municipality-level tool. However, no alternative is named and no explicit when-not guidance is given, so usage is only implied.

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