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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the exact content returned and the conditional enrichment when dates are provided. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the conditional date behavior. Dense but every clause carries information; nothing extraneous.

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 narrative explanation, and all 7 parameters are documented. The description covers the one non-obvious behavior (conditional availability/pricing), leaving little an agent would need to infer before calling it.

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 schema already documents every parameter including the 'both or neither' date rule and the party fields. The description largely restates those semantics rather than adding format or edge-case detail beyond the structured fields.

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 ('Returns the full details of one noclegowo.pl offer by offer_id') and enumerates the returned fields, which cleanly separates it from search-type siblings. It does not name search_accommodations as the source of offer_id or address the overlap with check_availability, so differentiation is left partly implicit.

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 description explains the conditional usage of date_from/date_to (availability and whole-stay price only when both dates plus party are supplied), which is genuinely useful context. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not guidance relative to check_availability or search tools.

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