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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context: the specific data sources (CERT Polska, UKE), the time-window behavior, and the open-data license (CC-BY). This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose declaration, a clear 'UŻYJ, gdy...' usage trigger, a concise list of return values, and a data source/attribution note. Every sentence earns its place, and it remains compact despite the multiple pieces of 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested objects, output schema present) and the presence of annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and data provenance. No significant gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%: the 'days' parameter is fully described in the schema (window in days, default 7, min/max). The description only lightly echoes this via 'w zadanym oknie', adding minimal semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it returns current phone abuse indicators in Poland, with a specific list of outputs (new fraudulent domains on CERT Polska warning list, UKE DNO register size, latest official warning numbers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recent_scam_domains, which focus on individual domains rather than aggregate metrics.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'UŻYJ, gdy użytkownik pyta o skalę oszustw, phishingu lub spamu w Polsce albo co nowego w kampaniach oszustów.' This is clear usage guidance, though it does not mention when not to use or name specific alternative tools.

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