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

Goes well beyond annotations: discloses that the operation takes minutes, that progress is polled via get_my_tender (last_fill) and results via list_tender_files, that it consumes the plan's fill limit, and the 8/day per-person rate limit. It enumerates terminal statuses (started, missing_facts, nip_required, fill_limit, rate_limit) and states OAuth plus trial/paid plan requirements — none of which annotations convey.

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?

Purpose and the app-equivalent name are front-loaded, and every clause carries information (prerequisites, statuses, progress, limits). It is a dense single paragraph with semicolon-chained clauses, which slightly hurts scannability but wastes nothing.

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 supplies exactly what would otherwise be missing: the status vocabulary to interpret the result, where to poll progress, and where the produced files appear. For a long-running, quota-consuming mutation, nothing essential is absent.

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?

allow_missing is fully explained in both schema and prose, including the prerequisite status that motivates it. tender_id carries only format/pattern in the schema with no prose meaning, but it is self-evident as the target tender; coverage is 50% yet the description compensates well for the parameter that actually needs semantics.

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 ('Starts filling in the documents of a tender ... with the company's data') and enumerates what gets filled (forms, declarations, price form), plus maps it to the recognizable in-app action 'Wypełnij'. An agent can distinguish it from set_fill_details or get_tender_documents without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names prerequisites (offer price, completion deadline, signatory name/role) and routes the agent to the exact tools that satisfy them (confirm_bid_price, set_fill_details) via status missing_facts. It also explains allow_missing=true as the user's deliberate choice ('Wypełnij z tym co jest'), so use-vs-not is unambiguous.

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