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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds useful framing: prices are public informational ranges, not binding offers, which is a 'what you get' caveat not in the annotations. It doesn't cover pagination, ordering, or limits, so it earns a modest 3.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the optional-query note, then the disclaimer. No wasted words, though the disclaimer could be phrased more compactly.

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?

Reasonable for a simple read-only two-parameter tool. The disclaimer is a nice touch. However, without an output schema the description should say what 'structured rows' contain and how results are ordered or limited, and it doesn't.

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 50%: query has an inline description with examples, limit has none. The description only notes query is optional, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline for the high-coverage parameter is met, but limit semantics (max, default) are left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Parse') and resource ('public renovation cennik') and the output ('structured rows'). It doesn't differentiate from siblings like get_price_information or ask_oleba, but the resource and output format are clear.

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?

Says 'Query is optional' but gives no when-to-use or when-to-prefer-alternatives guidance. The sibling get_price_information is notably similar and never referenced, leaving the agent to guess between them.

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