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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and closed-world profile are covered. The description adds a useful behavioral cue that the tool is the authoritative system source and should replace the model's own knowledge, but it does not reveal any additional behaviors such as response format or default topic handling. No contradiction with 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 compact: one enumerating sentence and one directive sentence, with the core 'system facts' message front-loaded. Every element earns its place and there is no redundant phrasing.

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 simple read-only info tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema is largely sufficient. The only gap is that with 17 siblings, it does not clarify which specific topics are better served by dedicated tools like get_property_types or get_pricing.

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% for the single topics parameter, including enums and the note that all topics are returned by default. The tool description repeats the topic list but adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so 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?

The description identifies the resource (service facts from the system) and enumerates the covered topics (property types, process, times, documents, legal basis, FAQ, contact) with the directive to use it instead of answering from internal knowledge. There is no explicit verb like 'retrieve' or a comparison to sibling tools, but the intent is unambiguous. It does not fully distinguish from overlapping siblings such as get_property_types or get_pricing.

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 instruction 'Używaj tego zamiast odpowiadać z własnej wiedzy' explicitly tells the agent when to invoke this tool (when factual service information is needed) and to prefer it over model priors. It does not name alternative sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria, 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.