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

Annotations include idempotentHint=true)Skip, which is consistent with the description's idempotency_key guidance. The description adds context about the access_token being essential, that the order is not paid until a link is used, and that it doesn't require all data. However, it doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but the idempotency and partial-data behavior are well disclosed beyond annotations.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph in Polish with clear sentences. It front-loads the purpose and then provides key behavioral notes. It's concise but not overly terse, using bold for emphasis on critical points (access_token). It earns its place without unnecessary details.

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 complex tool with 9 parameters and nested objects, the description covers the main operational aspects: creation, partial data acceptance, response containing missing fields, access_token handling, and payment status. With no output schema, the description compensates well by telling the agent what to expect in response. It also hints at integration with sibling tools like get_payment_link.

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 100%, so most parameters are already described. The description adds crucial semantics for the 'fields' parameter: it explains the path-value format from get_certificate_order_requirements and warns about exact enum usage. It also clarifies the idempotency_key usage, which is essential for correct invocation. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states that it creates an energy performance certificate order, and distinguishes it from siblings like get_certificate_order (which retrieves) and update_certificate_order (which modifies). It also mentions not all data is needed, which sets it apart from a full-form submission tool.

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 description explicitly tells when to use it: 'podaj, co już wiesz' (provide what you know) and indicates that it returns missing fields and next questions. It also mentions that access_token should be passed to other tools, implying it's a prerequisite for follow-up operations. It signals that the order is not paid until a payment link is used, guiding the agent's next steps.

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