get_price_distribution

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive hints, and the description adds a key behavioral quirk: location/teryt are silently ignored because the histogram is national. It does not describe the return shape or units explicitly, but for a read-only aggregation tool this is solid added context.

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?

Two efficient sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the exclusion/alternative guidance following immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 a read-only, no-output-schema tool with 100% param coverage, the description covers purpose, scope, and the ignored-parameter pitfall. Only the exact histogram/return representation is left implicit, which is a minor gap.

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% and already documents bins, maxPrice, and the ignored location/teryt fields. The description's note about ignored params largely repeats what the schema states, so baseline 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?

States a specific output form (national histogram of transactions per price range) and scope (all Poland), clearly differentiating it from location-scoped siblings. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the 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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('overall price structure of the market') and names the alternatives for the location-specific case ('for one place use get_price_statistics or search_transactions'), including the condition that selects them.

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