statystyki_cen

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: outlier rejection via Tukey's rule on log price, the meaning of cleaned min/max, the 'odrzucone_odstajace' field, and a caution for high outlier counts. It also explains the impact of 'tylko_mieszkalne' and 'tylko_rynkowe' filters on data quality, providing a solid safety profile.

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 description is well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a brief behavioral note, then a systematic Args list. Every sentence contributes value, and key information is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool without redundancy.

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 8 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers every input parameter, explains the outlier-cleaning behavior, and provides interpretation guidance via 'odrzucone_odstajace'. It also integrates with sibling 'znajdz_obszar' for bbox, making it complete for selection and correct invocation.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining all 8 parameters in the Args section. It gives order and coordinate system for bbox, enum values for typ, date format and inclusivity for data_od/data_do, and the behavioral rationale for boolean filters. This far exceeds the schema's basic titles and types.

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 and resource: 'Liczy statystyki ceny za m²' (computes per-m² price statistics) from real transactions in an area. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'znajdz_obszar' (find area) and 'wyszukaj_transakcje' (search transactions), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies its usage context (for area-based market statistics) and references 'znajdz_obszar' for bbox input, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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