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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, what happens when the date range is omitted, or the practical meaning/limits of 'bombshells'. Calling it a read-only list is inferable from 'Zwraca listę', but nothing beyond that is explained.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the resource first and the optional filtering afterward. No filler, though the parenthetical costs a few words for modest clarification value.

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 list tool with 3 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It still leaves return structure, ordering, and default date-range behavior unstated, which is a modest gap rather than a critical one.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, date_from, and date_to with formats and bounds. The description only echoes the date-range filtering and omits the limit parameter entirely, adding no meaning beyond the schema — 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 names a specific verb+resource ('Zwraca listę kluczowych wydarzeń politycznych') and even clarifies the domain concept via the parenthetical '(tzw. bombshells) wpływających na dynamikę poparcia społecznego'. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_polling_averages or get_parties, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 only usage signal is 'z opcjonalnym filtrowaniem po zakresie dat', which merely restates the optional parameters. There is no statement of when to prefer this tool, what question it answers, or any exclusion relative to the sibling projection/polling tools.

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