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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the required OAuth authentication, the trial/paid plan gate, and the shape of the response ('matching codes with Polish labels'). Pagination and the meaning of the limit cap are still undisclosed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then downstream usage, then access prerequisites. No filler or restated title.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return value and its Polish labels, and covers auth and plan gating. What's missing is the behavior of the limit parameter and whether results are ranked or truncated, which matters for a search tool.

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%: the query parameter is documented in the schema with the Polish-language constraint, while limit has no description anywhere. The description's 'resolve free-text' reinforces query but adds nothing about limit, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap beyond the schema baseline.

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 and resource ('Resolve free-text to CPV codes') and even explains what CPV is and that results come with Polish labels. It implicitly separates itself from cpv_labels and cpv_tree by positioning this as free-text resolution, but never names those siblings 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?

Gives concrete downstream usage: hand the codes to list_tenders filter='category', using the first 8 digits as the division. It also states access preconditions (OAuth plus trial/paid plan). It stops short of telling the agent when to prefer this over cpv_labels or cpv_tree.

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