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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by stating what comes back (offer count and median salary), which annotations cannot express. It omits any note on default/max result limits despite the schema capping limit at 20.

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 Polish sentence is front-loaded and information-dense, covering purpose, input form, and output. The trailing English sentence is largely a restatement for non-Polish readers, which is mildly redundant but defensible for a bilingual tool.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields (offer count, median salary) and the identifier. Combined with full schema coverage for both parameters, an agent has enough to invoke it, though result-limit behavior remains unstated.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes beyond it by giving four concrete query examples ('magazynier', 'pielęgniarka', 'programista java', 'devops'), clarifying that partial/compound names and English-tech terms in Polish text are acceptable. It adds no guidance on the limit parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (find an occupation by Polish name) and even names the payload (occupation id, offer count, median salary), which is more than the title conveys. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_salary or compare_occupations, so an agent must infer the boundary on its own.

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: search by Polish name/fragment to obtain an occupation identifier that presumably feeds other tools. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no mention of the alternatives (get_salary, compare_occupations) already exposed in the sibling list.

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