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

With no annotations, the description must carry safety and behavior disclosure. It adds useful behavioral context—public informational ranges, not binding offers—and the word 'Parse' implies a read operation. It does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects, nor describe output/pagination details, but the description is not silent.

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 with the main purpose first, followed by the optional query note and the non-binding caveat. Every sentence adds distinct information and there is no filler.

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?

This is a simple two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema; the description covers purpose, optionality, and status of returned prices. It is functional but leaves two gaps: it does not describe the structure/fields of the returned rows, and it does not differentiate from the closely named sibling get_price_information.

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 already has a description with examples, while limit has only type and bounds. The description only notes 'Query is optional,' which adds marginal value over the schema and does not explain limit's effect or add meaning for the undocumented limit parameter.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Parse the public renovation cennik into structured rows,' and adds that results are public informational ranges/amounts. This clearly identifies the tool's function and separates it from related siblings like get_price_information, which are not described as parsing the cennik.

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 gives context that this is the public renovation price list and that query is optional, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as get_price_information or provide any exclusions/alternatives.

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