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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Pobiera' makes clear this is a read-only retrieval, and it discloses the scope (monthly series, 12 months or a year), which is useful. It says nothing about empty-month handling, result size, or the raw-vs-processed averaging behavior, though those are partly covered by parameters.

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 names the resource, its scope, and the intended use without padding. Nothing is wasted, though it is brief enough that some useful context is omitted rather than compressed.

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 retrieval tool with six fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and use case adequately. The main gap is that it does not clarify the raw vs. weighted/arithmetic strategy distinction or how it relates to get_polling_averages.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the range options already documented in the schema and adds no meaning for strategy, pollster_id, strategy_version, or include_empty_months, so it does not go beyond structured data.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieving a time series of monthly polling averages for Polish parties, scoped to last 12 months or a chosen year. It is distinguishable from the sibling get_polling_averages via the explicit 'szereg czasowy' (time series) framing, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 phrase 'do analizy trendów historycznych' (for historical trend analysis) implies the intended use case, and the parenthetical mentions the two range modes. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no reference to the overlapping sibling get_polling_averages, leaving the agent to infer which tool fits.

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