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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the response consists of items, each with an identifier, price in grosze, and payment-page address. This goes beyond the boolean annotations and is sufficient for a simple no-parameter read operation.

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 focused sentences: the first states the core return value, and the second describes the item fields. There is no filler, redundancy, or extraneous detail, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns and does so by specifying id, price in grosze, and payment-page URL for each item. It does not precisely define what 'minimum and maximum' refer to, but for a zero-parameter static catalog read, the description is largely complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is effectively 100%, so there is nothing for the description to document. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information.

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 uses the specific verb 'Zwraca' and clearly identifies the resource: donation amounts in the donation catalog, including a ladder of ready amounts, a custom-amount brick, and minimum/maximum. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like attentio-przygotuj-darowizne, so it lacks explicit differentiation, but the resource and action are unmistakable.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage context is only implied: an agent would call this to discover available donation amounts, likely before preparing a donation. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so it meets the 'implied usage' level.

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