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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Pobiera' implies a read operation and it discloses the shape of the returned data, but it says nothing about pagination behaviour despite page/limit/offset parameters, ordering, result caps, or anything destructive/irreversible.

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 with the verb first and the payload enumerated compactly; no filler or repetition. It is a bit dense but every clause earns its place.

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?

Because no output schema exists, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (results, metadata, N, dates, party structure), which covers the return-value burden. However, it omits routing guidance against the many sibling endpoints and any pagination semantics for an 8-parameter, unannotated tool.

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 all eight parameters (including date range, period_key, period_type, pollster_id) are already documented in the schema with defaults and formats. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Pobiera' plus the resource 'kolekcję pojedynczych sondaży poparcia partii politycznych' names exactly what is returned and even enumerates the payload (results, pollster metadata, sample N, dates, party structure). It is clearly distinct from aggregation/projection siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest sibling get_surveys_ids.

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 exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_surveys_ids (IDs only) or get_polling_averages (aggregated). The agent must infer the routing decision entirely from the sibling names.

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