spokojnie – czy to normalne?

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well by listing the payload sections (answer, norm, urgency panels, myths, sources with licences, page URL, last-checked date). It does not mention behavior for an unknown/expired id or any auth requirements, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the core purpose before the colon-delimited inventory of returned content, so the agent gets the essential routing fact first. The content list is long but each item earns its place by defining the payload in the absence of an output schema.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies both the input provenance (search_questions) and the returned fields, which is essentially everything needed to call it correctly. Missing only edge-case behavior for invalid ids.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: it tells the agent where the id comes from (search_questions) and that a page slug is also acceptable, matching the schema's 'e.g. Q001' format hint. That provenance detail is genuinely useful for invocation.

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 names a specific resource — the full checked answer for a single question id — and enumerates what that answer contains, so it is far more than a restatement of the name. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling by stating the id originates in search_questions. The only weakness is that the retrieving verb is implicit (carried by the Polish title 'Pobierz odpowiedź') rather than stated in the description itself.

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?

By saying the id comes 'from search_questions', it establishes the prerequisite discovery workflow the agent must follow, which is the key routing information for this sibling pair. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use conditions or error-handling guidance, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the description is not burdened with that. It adds genuine behavioral context beyond structured fields: a hard cap of 5 matches, what each match contains (page URL, last-checked date, urgency panels ordered SOR/112 then doctor), and a 'not medical advice' disclaimer. It stops short of describing ranking or empty-result behavior.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then inputs, then return shape, then the disclaimer. No filler and every sentence carries distinct 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of describing return values and ordering of urgency panels, which is the main completeness requirement. Minor gaps remain around no-match behavior and ranking of the up-to-5 results.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the meaningful constraint that the query must be in Polish and clarifies that age_months is optional and should be supplied when known, which reinforces semantics the schema states tersely.

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 with scope: searching checked answers about normal development for children aged 0–36 months. The Polish-content/Polish-care-path constraint is a useful qualifier. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_answer, but the search-vs-retrieve distinction is strongly implied by 'returns up to 5 matches'.

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 clear input context ('pass the parent's question or keywords in Polish and, if known, the child's age'), which implies when the tool applies. However, it never says when to use this versus get_answer, nor any exclusion (e.g. for ages over 36 months or non-Polish questions). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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