Pobierz kartę numeru

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool's safety is clear. The description adds minor behavioral detail (returns same data as check_phone_number plus link) but does not contradict annotations. No additional side effects or error handling disclosed.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first states the action and source of id, second clarifies the output compared to a sibling. No filler or redundant 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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by referencing check_phone_number's return shape plus a link. It covers the core requirement. Missing details on error handling or validation of id format, but overall sufficient for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 the schema description for 'id' is already informative: Polish number, 9 digits from search. The description reinforces this but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool fetches the full reputation card for a number using an ID from search, and distinguishes from check_phone_number by noting it returns the same data plus a link. The verb 'pobiera' and resource 'kartę reputacji numeru' are precise.

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 the precondition: must use an id from search with 9 digits. Implicitly suggests using fetch when you need the link, versus check_phone_number without it. However, no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative names for edge cases.

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