Szukaj: numer lub infolinia

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety info. It adds useful behavioral context: how queries are interpreted and what results contain (id, title, url). No contradictions with annotations.

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 one efficient sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('Wyszukiwanie w bazie NumerTel'), and every word serves a purpose. Zero wasted text.

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 the tool's dual-mode complexity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers input interpretation and output fields. It does not mention pagination or limits, but these are likely not critical for this tool's expected use.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful detail beyond the schema: it specifies acceptable formats (9 digits, +48) and gives examples (mBank, ZUS), enhancing the agent's ability to construct valid queries.

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 searches a Polish phone number database, with two distinct modes: phone number query returns reputation card, institution name returns verified official numbers. It also specifies output fields (id, title, url), making the purpose specific and distinguishable from siblings like check_phone_number.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: for Polish phone numbers or institution names. It implies the tool is not for other query types, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools exist (e.g., check_scam_domain) but are not contrasted.

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