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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive/openWorld, but the description adds genuine behavioral traits beyond them: it is 'deterministic' and 'missing facts are reported, never guessed.' That no-hallucination contract is meaningful context an agent can rely on when interpreting the answer bundle.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its sources, with the behavioral contract trailing. No wasted words, though the second sentence slightly duplicates the read-only annotation.

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?

For a 16-parameter tool with no output schema and only 50% parameter coverage, the description is thin - it does not explain the shape of the returned bundle, the effect of mode/fallback_mode, or how the many filters interact. An agent can call it but cannot predict the output or the fallback behavior.

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?

With 16 parameters and only 50% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the undocumented half, but it mentions no parameter at all - not mode, fallback_mode, price_limit, allow_fallback, or the area range fields. The schema carries the load and leaves notable gaps the description does not fill.

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 ('compose') and resource ('source-linked answer bundle') and names the four underlying sources (service catalog, cennik, service-area evidence, realization portfolio). This clearly positions it as the synthesis tool relative to granular siblings like get_prices/get_realizations, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 implies usage ('compose a bundle' from multiple sources) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and does not tell the agent to prefer this over calling search_site, get_service, or get_prices individually. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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