search_administracja

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the data includes a specific source and relates to a postulate, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or behavior with invalid filters. No contradiction 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 concise: three sentences front-loading the purpose, followed by filter details and context. Every sentence earns its place without fluff. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 specifies the output fields (name, role, salary, etc.) and filter usage. It mentions a citation source and limit default (200). Could mention pagination behavior or response format, but overall it is adequate for a search tool.

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?

All three parameters (limit, entity, role_type) have schema descriptions, and the tool description adds concrete examples for entity ('MZ', 'MON') and role_type ('minister', 'wiceminister'), enhancing the schema's meaning. This adds value beyond the schema alone.

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 it searches government administration data, listing specific fields (name, surname, role, club, salary, source) and filters (role_type, entity). It is distinct from sibling tools like search_poslowie (deputies) and search_glosowania (votings) due to its focus on the central administration map.

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 context: it covers the government map (~350 positions in 54 institutions) and links to postulate #6. It implies use for querying administration roles, but does not explicitly state when to use or when to avoid it compared to alternatives like search_poslowie.

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