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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description does add one useful behavioral trait, that safety notes are date-dependent, implying results vary over time, but it says nothing about behavior on unknown slugs or how name/slug conflicts are resolved.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the tool's scope before the parameter guidance. The long parenthetical content list makes it dense and slightly harder to scan, but nothing is wasted.

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 usefully enumerates what comes back, including the conditional safety notes and links. It is nearly complete for a simple read tool; only lookup failure / disambiguation behavior is left implicit.

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% and both parameters already carry examples and the 'from szukaj_tras' origin note. The description's parameter guidance largely restates the schema, adding only the loose precedence hint of slug-first, name-as-fallback.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Pełny opis jednej trasy z katalogu') and then enumerates the returned content (numbers, time with approach, stage-by-stage course, description, safety notes, links), which clearly separates it from the sibling tools that only search (szukaj_tras) or compute routes (wyznacz_trase).

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 tells the agent where to get the identifier ('Podaj slug z szukaj_tras') and gives a fallback ('albo nazwę celu'), effectively chaining this tool after the search tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it or what happens with ambiguous names.

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