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

No annotations are provided, but the description's 'returns a list' phrasing makes clear this is a read-only lookup with no side effects. It does not disclose whether the list is static or configurable, nor any auth requirements, so the behavioral disclosure is adequate but thin.

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 its contents with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 and no annotations, the description is the only contract, and it omits how the periods are represented (identifiers vs. localized labels) or their ordering — details an agent needs to actually consume the result and pass it to aggregation calls.

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 clarify; baseline 4 applies. The enumerations in the description describe return values rather than inputs.

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 ('Zwraca listę') and a precise resource ('dostępnych w systemie okresów agregacji sondaży'), and even enumerates the returned categories (miesięczne, tygodniowe, rolling). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_polling_averages, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus the sibling polling tools, nor that the returned periods are meant to feed period parameters elsewhere. Usage is only implied by the tool's nature as an enumerator; there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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