Search procuring entities or contractors by name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('list with NIP, location and volume'), which is helpful, but lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs. It's adequate but has gaps.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and output, the second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded with essential information and appropriately sized.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the return format and usage context. However, it could improve by mentioning potential limitations (e.g., search scope, data freshness) or error cases. It's mostly complete but not exhaustive.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'name (or fragment)' for the query and hinting at the output fields, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('Polish public procurement entities or contractors'), specifies the search criteria ('by name'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining its role in finding NIPs for get_buyer/get_contractor tools. It's specific and avoids tautology.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Useful to find the NIP for get_buyer / get_contractor tools'), providing clear guidance on its purpose in the workflow and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_buyer or get_contractor that require NIPs.

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