Get profile of a contractor (wykonawca)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return data structure (name, location, wins, value, buyers) which is helpful, but doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose, resource, key parameter, and return data. Every element earns its place with zero wasted words. The structure is front-loaded with the core action and progressively adds details.

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 2-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and return data overview but lacks details on error cases, data freshness, or response format. It's minimally viable but could better address the gaps left by missing structured fields.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description mentions NIP as the identifier and implies include_winning_buyers controls buyer data inclusion, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Fetch a profile'), resource ('Polish tender contractor'), and key identifying attribute ('by its NIP'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_buyer or get_tender by focusing on contractor profiles rather than buyers, categories, or tenders.

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 needing contractor profile data by NIP, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like search_entities or other get_* tools. It mentions what data is returned but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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