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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false): discloses that Odpuszczam requires a reason, that Wygrana requires a contract value, that a refused move returns allowed_statuses, that changes are written to status history and notify the team, and that OAuth plus a trial/paid plan are required. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before mutating state.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the allowed transitions, then side effects and auth. It is dense and long for a single block, but nearly every clause carries distinct information; light restructuring into sentences would improve scanability.

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 and four parameters, the description covers preconditions (auth, plan), valid targets, conditional parameters, and the failure shape (allowed_statuses). The only gap is the success response, which an agent might want to know since no output schema exists.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value the schema lacks: it names list_my_tenders as the source of valid status names and enumerates the full closing/appeal status vocabulary, which the schema cannot express because there are no enums. The reason/winning_price conditions largely restate the schema fields, keeping it from a 5.

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 ('Moves a tender ... to another status') and immediately scopes it to the signed-in company's 'Moje przetargi' kanban. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like list_my_tenders or get_my_tender, which only read tender state.

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 enumeration of permitted transitions (own stages, 'Do wysłania', 'Oczekiwanie na wynik', closing statuses, appeals, back-moves) tells an agent exactly when the call will succeed. It also points to list_my_tenders as the source of valid status names. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for cases outside these transitions, so not a full 5.

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