Szukaj lokalizacji

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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world safety, and the description adds valuable semantics beyond them: total=null meaning, truncated=true handling, offer_count=0 exclusion, and that search_offers does not filter by street. Much of the raw field list is redundant with the existing output schema, so it stops short of a full 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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage, then output semantics; every sentence is information-dense. It is somewhat long and the itemized field list borders on redundancy given the output schema, but no sentence is wasted.

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 a single-param tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, the sibling dependency, edge-case semantics (truncation, zero-offer filtering), and downstream usage. 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 description coverage is 100% and the single query param is fully documented in the schema (length, Polish characters, examples). The description restates it as a name fragment without adding syntax or format beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: finds cities, districts and streets in Poland by name fragment. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it returns neither offers nor prices, which sets it apart from search_offers. An agent can identify its role immediately.

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?

Explicitly says to use it at the beginning to convert a place name into the city_slug required by search_offers, giving the exact ordering and dependency. It also states when NOT to forward results (offer_count=0) and how district/street map to search_offers parameters.

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