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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful provenance detail — results include source, date, and a link back to the parcel page — but says nothing about invalid sections, availability for a given parcel, or caching.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and then the value-add (examples plus provenance). Nothing is padded, though one clause about where parcel_id comes from would have earned its place.

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 return values need no further explanation. However, for a read-only lookup whose only real difficulty is picking the right section and sourcing parcel_id, the description leaves both partially unresolved and does not say how this differs from get_parcel_overview.

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 parameter meaning. Its examples translate several opaque enum values (mpzp, flood, utilities, road_context, transactions) into human terms, but several enum values (egib, wz, protected_areas, landslides, air_quality, identity_and_geometry) remain unexplained and parcel_id's origin/format is never addressed.

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 a specific verb+resource: retrieving a single thematic section for a parcel, and gives concrete examples (zoning plan, flood, utilities, road access, nearby transactions). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_parcel_overview, so sibling differentiation is only implied by 'jednego tematu'.

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 — call this when you need one specific topic rather than the whole overview — but no alternatives are named and no conditions for choosing this over get_parcel_overview or find_parcel are stated. The agent must infer the routing from the word 'one topic'.

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