Pogoda spamowa w Polsce

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

Annotations readOnlyHint and idempotentHint are present. The description adds value by detailing the return data (new domains, UKE list size, official warnings) and noting open data source (CC-BY). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and output. It front-loads the key verb and resource, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, return data, and data source. It is complete for its role as a statistical aggregation 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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'days' fully described in the schema. The description does not add further parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 title and description clearly state the tool provides current phone abuse indicators in Poland. It specifies exactly what data is returned (new domains, UKE list size, official warnings) and explicitly instructs when to use it (user asks about scam scale or new fraud campaigns), distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_phone_number or check_scam_domain.

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 description explicitly says 'UŻYJ, gdy użytkownik pyta o skalę oszustów, phishingu lub spamu w Polsce albo co nowego w kampaniach oszustów', providing clear context for use. While it doesn't specifically state when not to use it, the focus and sibling context make the guidance sufficient.

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