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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it does disclose the return shape ('słownik' = dictionary) and concrete example values, which matters since no output schema exists. It says nothing about read-only safety, ordering, or error behavior, so gaps remain.

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 identifies the resource and illustrates its contents with real examples. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter reference lookup with no annotations or output schema, the description covers what the data is but omits the one thing an agent most needs here: how this reference list differs from siblings that return surveys or parties, and whether the returned keys are the identifiers those tools expect.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly refrains from inventing filtering options that do not exist.

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 states a concrete verb+resource: it returns a dictionary of polling/research institutions conducting political surveys in Poland, with named examples (CBOS, IBRiS, IPSOS, etc.). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_parties or get_surveys, though it never explicitly names what it is not.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling tools that return actual survey data (get_surveys, get_polling_averages), and no indication of when this reference lookup is needed versus those. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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