Szukaj deweloperów

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the name-to-slug conversion role, the truncation contract (truncated=true means more matches exist, refine or raise limit to max 20), and the total=null edge case. It does restate some return-field structure that the output schema likely covers, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose before the routing rationale, then the return/truncation contract. Dense but every sentence carries information; the field-by-field enumeration of items is the only mild over-explanation.

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?

With an output schema, full parameter descriptions, and annotations present, the description only needs to add the lookup role and truncation handling, both of which it covers. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already documents both 'name' (fragment, 2–100 chars, examples) and 'limit' (default 5, max 20). The description largely repeats those facts, though it does add the framing that 'name' is a lookup key for slug resolution. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Znajduje deweloperów ... po fragmencie nazwy') and scopes it to the primary market, then explicitly excludes adjacent data ('Nie zwraca ofert ani cen'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the downstream tool it feeds, get_developer.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Użyj, żeby zamienić nazwę dewelopera na developer_slug, którego wymaga get_developer'), names the alternative/next step, and states a when-not ('Nie zwraca ofert ani cen'). An agent knows exactly when to pick this over search_offers or get_developer.

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