osoba

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does clarify the output content (name, email, phone, workplace/study) and the typical subject (teacher), but it does not address lookup failure, permissions, or whether this is strictly a read operation. The behavioral disclosure is partial but useful.

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 a single efficient sentence that names the resource and the fields returned. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could have used the same space to briefly define the required parameter.

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 one-parameter tool, the description gives the expected result fields but omits the meaning of the required 'uco' identifier and any failure/edge-case context. There is no output schema to compensate, so the agent is left without enough information to invoke the tool confidently.

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 only parameter, 'uco', has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what 'uco' means or how it relates to the person being looked up. Since the description adds no semantic value for the parameter, an agent cannot reliably determine what value to provide.

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 resource (a person, typically a teacher) and the data returned: name, email, phone, and workplace/study. It is distinct from most sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'look up' and does not directly contrast with related 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'Kontakt na osobu,' so an agent must infer when this is the right choice among the many sibling tools.

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