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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds value by disclosing data provenance ('z prawdziwych transakcji') and that results carry a period and a confidence measure, which hints at data coverage/recency concerns an agent should weigh — but it does not say what happens for municipalities with sparse transactions or how the confidence field should be interpreted.

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?

Three compact sentences: a leading question framing the outcome, a list of what the answer contains, and the input requirement placed last but with zero filler. The rhetorical question is slightly wasteful, but nothing else could be cut without losing information.

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, return values need no explanation, and rich annotations cover safety and idempotency. The description supplies the one thing the schema lacks — where the TERYT code comes from — plus the data-quality context; the only gap is the absence of any hand-off rule versus the other market-oriented siblings.

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 burden for the single parameter, and it does add meaning: it names the source of the value (a 6-digit code from an address search) rather than just the format. The 6-digit constraint itself is already enforced by the schema pattern, so the description's contribution is the origin of the code, not its shape.

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 states the resource (land-plot prices in a municipality) and enumerates the substance of the answer: median prices from real transactions, sale count, period, and confidence. It is clear at a glance, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_market_pulse, which plausibly overlaps in scope, so an agent must infer the split.

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 closing sentence gives practical sourcing guidance — the municipality is indicated by a 6-digit code obtained from an address search — which is a real usage hint for obtaining the required argument. However, there is no statement of when to pick this tool over get_market_pulse or get_parcel_overview, so routing between siblings stays implicit.

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