search_by_nip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only says 'look up' (implying a read) and never states whether the result is a point-in-time snapshot as of the given date, what happens when no taxpayer matches, or any auth/rate-limit considerations. That leaves the most consequential behavior — the meaning of the date — undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the format constraint is placed where it will be read. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, which is a completeness issue rather than a structural one.

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?

For a two-required-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what 'taxpayer details' contains, whether the date is an as-of filter, and how misses are signalled. None of that is present, so an agent cannot predict the response shape or failure mode.

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 0% for two required parameters, so the schema supplies no meaning. The description adds real value for 'date' by constraining it to explicit YYYY-MM-DD format, but it never explains what that date selects (as-of status? registration date?), and 'nip' is left entirely undefined beyond the acronym.

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 gives a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('taxpayer details') and identifies the key as NIP, which implicitly separates it from search_by_regon and search_by_bank_account. It does not name those siblings, so an agent must infer the differentiation from the differing identifier.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus search_by_regon, search_bulk, or check_bank_account, and no conditions or exclusions. The only implied guidance is that the caller must already hold a NIP and a date.

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