search_by_signature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds that it's a 'shortcut' and equivalent to a search operation, providing minor behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and example, then clarify the relationship to a sibling tool. Every sentence adds value with no 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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and equivalence to search, but does not describe the return format or output. Since the sibling search likely has a known output, this is a minor gap.

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% with a well-described 'signature' parameter. The description adds that this parameter is used as the phrase in a search equivalent, but this does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema's own description. Baseline 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 searches for interpretations (interpretacji KIS) by signature, with an example. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search' by being a shortcut equivalent to searching with the phrase equal to the signature, making the specific resource and verb clear.

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 explicitly relates to sibling 'search' by saying it's equivalent to 'search with phrase = signature', providing clear context for when to use this tool (when you have a signature). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_interpretation' or 'suggest'.

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