GIOŚ monitoring stations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are official GIOŚ stations returned with coordinates, but says nothing about result count, pagination, or behavior for unknown locations.

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 zero waste; the resource and scope are stated immediately and nothing needs trimming.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description states the source, the query scope, and the returned payload (coordinates). Only minor behavioral details are absent, which is acceptable at this complexity.

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% with a single documented parameter, so the schema already explains that 'query' accepts a town, commune, county or voivodeship. The description merely restates the same list, adding no format or matching semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('official air monitoring stations (GIOŚ)') plus the geographic scope, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the siblings air_quality or data_sources, which is the only gap.

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?

Usage is implied by the geographic query framing — an agent would infer this is for locating stations by place — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to the sibling tools (e.g., air_quality for readings at those stations).

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