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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds useful context beyond them: the catalog size, the maximum of 10 returned routes, and the important semantic caveat that czas_max_h includes the approach to the shelter. It does not disclose result ordering or behavior when no routes match.

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 three tightly written sentences with no redundant restatement of the title or schema. Purpose and usage are front-loaded, followed by the key time caveat and return behavior.

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 appropriately mentions that up to 10 routes are returned with ready times and links. It covers the main behavioral and semantic gaps for a search tool, though it could say more about ranking or empty-result behavior.

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 63%, and the description compensates with a critical clarification for czas_max_h: it counts total time including the approach to the shelter, which is not stated in the schema. It also reinforces the return limit, though many of the eight parameters are left to the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Szuka tras w katalogu Tatry Planer') and scopes the catalog to 145 routes in Poland and Slovakia. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as wyznacz_trase or trasa.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool: when someone asks for a trip proposal, with concrete examples like 'na 4 godziny z dzieckiem' and 'łatwy szczyt bez łańcuchów'. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.

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