Inwestycja z ofertami

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

Beyond readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses pagination semantics (offers_returned, truncated, offers_omitted, offers_total), the meaning of a non-zero offers_omitted as an incomplete list, and the payload cost of include_history (~10k vs ~6k characters at limit 20). It even notes that price_change_since_start is available without history, which is exactly the trade-off an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the mapping of slug to source tools, then a clearly separated 'Ograniczenia' block for limits and cost. It is somewhat long and repeats offer/character-count figures that also appear in the limit schema description, which keeps it from a 5.

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 3-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: how to obtain the slug, how to surface the returned URLs to the user, how truncation is signalled, and when to escalate to get_offer. Nothing material is left to inference.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds decision-relevant meaning: what limit=0 means, why not to raise the limit, and when include_history is worth its ~150-character-per-offer cost. It largely restates rather than extending the schema's own parameter text, which caps it below 5.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Zwraca inwestycję (projekt deweloperski)') and enumerates exactly what comes back: city, street, coordinates, developer, average prices of active offers, offer counts, and an offer list ordered active-first. It also distinguishes itself from a sibling by pointing single-offer lookups to get_offer.

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?

It states explicitly when to use it ('Użyj, gdy chcesz zobaczyć mieszkania jednego projektu'), where the required investment_slug comes from (search_investments, search_offers, get_developer), and redirects to get_offer when only one listing is needed. Both the positive trigger and the alternative path are present.

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