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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: catalogue size (~130 trainings), delivery-mode breakdown, and the exact fields returned (name, slug, net price PLN, nearest dates, link). It does not mention whether results are ranked or how dates are chosen.

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 core purpose, then filters, then return shape, with a compact English gloss for bilingual retrieval. The parenthetical catalogue blurb is slightly dense but each element carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and their units (net price in PLN). With zero required parameters and 100% schema coverage, the only remaining gap is result ordering/default behavior, which is minor.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including enum meanings and the limit cap. The description restates the filter list (phrase, category, form, max net price, BUR) without adding syntax or behavioral nuance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Wyszukuje szkolenia w katalogu Quality Island') and scopes it with the domains covered, delivery modes, and filter set. It's clearly a catalogue search, distinguishable from the detail/date siblings by name, though it never explicitly says 'for a single offering's details use szczegoly_szkolenia'.

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 filter enumeration implies how to narrow a search, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as szczegoly_szkolenia, terminy_szkolen, or szukaj_specjalistow_qa. An agent must infer the routing from tool names alone.

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