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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only 'public' pages/posts are returned, which is useful scoping, but it says nothing about the result cap (limit max 10) or what a result item contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, and the scoping concept with zero filler. The example list is dense but each item earns its place by illustrating valid inputs.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it never states that results are a bounded list, nor how 'location' is matched (exact locality vs. free text). Nothing critical is missing, but an agent must guess at result shape.

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. It does add real value by enumerating valid locality examples (Piaseczno, Ursynów, Mokotów, Józefosław, Konstancin-Jeziorna), clarifying the expected 'location' format, but the 'limit' parameter is entirely unexplained.

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 (find) and resource (public Oleba pages/posts) scoped to a locality, which is clearer than the terse title 'Find Oleba local pages'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from plausible siblings like search_site or get_content, leaving overlap for the agent to infer.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never names an alternative such as search_site or get_content. The locality examples imply a location-scoped lookup, but the agent gets no signal about when this tool beats a general site search.

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