Śladami Roberta Makłowicza

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It indicates the tool returns full location details including description and coordinates, but does not describe error behavior for invalid ids or other operational 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that identifies the tool's resource, scope, parameter source, and return contents with no wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple and the description gives enough to invoke it, but without an output schema or annotations it leaves return details partially vague beyond description and coordinates. Error handling and exact response shape are not covered.

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%, and the single id parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description adds useful meaning by saying it is a location id obtained from search_locations, but does not specify id format or validation expectations.

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: retrieving full details of one location by id. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_locations by noting the id comes from that search tool.

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?

Clearly implies the intended workflow: use search_locations first, then call this tool with the returned id. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the role is clear relative to the listed siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: the returned aggregates (location and episode counts) and that country names are Polish, which affects downstream matching. It omits ordering, pagination, and completeness guarantees, but for a zero-parameter read this is solid 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the payload/locale detail. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description sensibly summarizes what comes back (location and episode counts, Polish names). An agent has enough to call it and interpret results; only ordering and cardinality are unspecified.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the empty schema means there is nothing extra for the description to explain. The description correctly signals the tool is unfiltered.

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?

Specific verb+resource plus scope: 'All countries Robert Makłowicz visited' tells the agent exactly what set is returned, and 'with location and episode counts' names the payload attributes. The note that names are in Polish further distinguishes it from the sibling location tools.

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?

Usage is only implied — the agent can infer it is the enumeration tool versus search_locations or get_location for lookup, but the description never says when to prefer it or that it takes no filters. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior — results are ordered newest first and the filter takes a Polish country name — but it omits return shape, pagination/limits, and whether an absent filter returns everything.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and ordering front-loaded and the filter semantics attached directly to it. No filler.

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 simple single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essentials are present, but an agent can't tell the result shape or whether results are paginated/capped, and there's no signal on behavior for an invalid country name.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that 'country' takes a Polish name and gives the example "Włochy". It could still clarify matching behavior (exact vs. case-insensitive), but the key ambiguity is resolved.

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?

It names the resource (episodes), the ordering (newest first), and the optional filter. The listing verb is only implied, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_countries, but an agent can tell what it returns.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'optionally filtered to a country' suggests calling it with or without the argument. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer list_countries or get_location, and no prerequisites stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: diacritics-insensitive matching and Polish-only data requiring Polish query terms. It still omits filter-combination semantics, behavior with no filters, and result ordering, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core search behavior and followed by two critical operational notes. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a four-parameter search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the critical language quirk but leaves meaningful gaps: limit semantics, filter combination behavior, and what happens when no filters are supplied. It is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description is expected to compensate. It explains what the query searches over (name, address, description) and mentions country and type, but says nothing about the limit parameter or how multiple filters combine.

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 states a specific verb (Search) and resource (restaurants and attractions) and names the searchable fields, making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_location or list_countries, but the search-vs-fetch distinction is reasonably inferable.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Search ... by text, country and/or type', but the description never states when to use this tool versus get_location or list_countries, nor does it name any alternative. The agent is left to infer that this is the broad discovery tool.

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