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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and idempotency behavior are covered. The description adds useful scope by listing the domains included and noting that it returns a link to the full report, but it does not disclose data freshness, partial availability, or other operational behavior.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: it names the tool's purpose, then lists the data categories covered, then notes the returned report link. The list is dense but each item contributes to scope; there is little wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in detail, and the annotations cover safety traits. However, it still omits important context: how parcel_id is sourced, how this overview differs from get_parcel_section, and whether results are partial or cached. It is adequate but incomplete for a multi-domain overview 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the only structured information about parcel_id is its type and length constraints. The description does not explain the parcel identifier format or how an agent should obtain a valid parcel_id, for example from find_parcel or search_location. For a tool with a single required parameter, this leaves a meaningful gap.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Sprawdź działkę') and enumerates the parcel data domains the overview covers: zoning plan, building conditions, flood risk, utilities, access, nature protection, landslides and local prices. It is clearly an overview tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings such as get_parcel_section or find_parcel.

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 only implied: the tool is for checking what is known about a parcel and obtaining a link to a full report. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as using find_parcel first or get_parcel_section for section-level detail.

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