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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not repeat that. It adds a useful behavioral note about providing enum values EXACTLY as they appear, which helps the agent avoid mistakes. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral aspects like response size, formatting, or potential errors. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the caveat about enum values. Every sentence contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 read-only options tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is returned and the key caution about enum exactness. It lacks details on response structure or nested objects, but those are not critical for invoking the tool correctly. The provided information is complete enough for an agent to use it as a lookup.

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% because the property_type parameter has an explicit description ('Zawęź listy wartości do jednego typu nieruchomości'). The description does not add any further parameter-specific context beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns 'opcje zamówienia' (order options) and enumerates the specific categories: property types, paid add-ons (express, paper), supported document types, and key value lists. This is a specific verb+resource with concrete content, fully separating it from siblings like get_property_types or get_form_fields.

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?

Description implies usage by listing the content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_certificate_information or get_pricing. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided; an agent must infer when to call this instead of other options-retrieval tools.

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