detail_subjektu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes what data is returned (statutory representatives, partners, business activities, legal form, address) and the effect of the 'historia' parameter on historical records. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The first states the core purpose, the second lists returned data fields, and the third explains the optional parameter's effect. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct value.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what data is returned and parameter effects. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values in detail. Minor gaps include lack of error handling information.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'ico' as the identifier for the legal entity and 'historia' as a boolean controlling whether historical records are included. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format requirements for 'ico'.

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 specific action ('Vráti kompletný detail' - returns complete detail), the resource ('právnickej osoby z RPO' - legal entity from RPO), and the key identifier ('podľa IČO' - by IČO). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'hladaj_subjekt' (search subject) by focusing on detailed retrieval rather than searching.

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 implies usage when detailed information about a specific legal entity is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus the sibling 'hladaj_subjekt' or any other alternatives. It mentions the 'historia' parameter for historical records, which provides some contextual guidance.

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