Inwestycja z ofertami

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the operational burden and does so well: it explains the limit default, the truncation contract (offers_returned, truncated, offers_omitted, offers_total), warns not to raise the limit casually, and flags that include_history makes the result longer and slower. It loses a point because much of that field-level detail is already carried by the output schema rather than being purely additive behavior.

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 structure is strong and front-loaded: what it returns, then when to use it, then constraints and the sibling alternative. It is somewhat long for the payload it delivers, and the limit/default restatement duplicates the schema, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still supplies the pieces the schema cannot: when to pick this over get_offer, how to source the slug, and how to interpret truncation. For a read-only three-parameter lookup, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents limit, include_history and investment_slug with defaults, ranges and the slug's provenance. The description largely restates those (default 20, include_history extends the result) instead of adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Zwraca inwestycję (projekt deweloperski)') and enumerates the returned data: city, street, coordinates, developer, average active-offer prices, offer count and offer list. It explicitly separates itself from the sibling get_offer ('Dla jednej oferty lepiej użyć get_offer'), so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('Użyj, gdy chcesz zobaczyć mieszkania jednego projektu'), names the alternative for the single-offer case, and states exactly where investment_slug originates (search_investments, search_offers, get_developer). It also tells the agent to surface investment_url/developer_url to the user as links, which is actionable guidance rather than description filler.

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