list_organization_krs_entries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It communicates read-only listing behavior and the 'all' scope, which is the core behavioral trait. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, data currency, or whether the response could be partial or truncated. For a simple list operation with an output schema, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information or filler.

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?

The tool has a simple single-parameter schema and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the presence of related sibling tools with similar KRS terminology means the description could do more to clarify when this tool is preferred over get_organization_krs_extract or get_organization_krs_chapter. It is minimally complete for a straightforward listing tool but leaves some contextual ambiguity.

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?

The schema has one required string parameter 'id' with 0% description coverage. The description says 'for an organization,' which implies 'id' identifies the organization. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, but it does not explicitly state whether the id is an organization ID, a KRS number, or some other identifier, so the agent must rely on convention and the tool name.

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 states a specific action ('List all') and a clear resource ('KRS entries (wpisy) recorded for an organization'). It also clarifies the Polish term, which helps an agent understand the domain. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_organization_krs_extract or get_organization_krs_chapter, but the resource scope is reasonably distinct.

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 this is the tool to use when all KRS entries for an organization are needed, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not mention any alternatives or exclusions. The sibling tools include related KRS operations, so some usage direction would add significant value.

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