Statystyki rynku miasta

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: only active (non-archived) offers, exactly one city, counts that may diverge from search_offers totals, no individual offers, and guidance that list_url/developer_url should be surfaced as links. This is unusually rich scoping and output-behavior disclosure.

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 the core purpose, then usage, then limitations — a sensible order. It is dense and somewhat long, with a heavy parenthetical enumerating return fields that is partly redundant with the output schema, but every sentence still carries routing or constraint 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description still covers purpose, routing, filtering scope, data-source caveats, and exactly one city. For a 6-parameter read-only statistics tool, an agent has everything needed to invoke it and interpret constraints correctly.

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. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that the price/area filters are optional and applied to offers, that city must be a city_slug from search_locations, and that 'polska' will not work — meaning not captured in the schema field text.

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 and resource ('Zwraca statystyki rynku ofert deweloperskich w jednym mieście') and enumerates exactly what is returned: offer/investment/developer counts, price and price-per-m² distributions, area percentiles, and top developers. It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_offers ('a nie konkretnych mieszkań'), 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 rule ('Użyj, gdy pytanie dotyczy rynku miasta... typowe ceny, kto ma najwięcej ofert') and names the alternative tool for the contrasting case ('a nie konkretnych mieszkań (search_offers)'). Limitations are also spelled out (active offers only, single city, counts may differ).

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