Biała lista VAT — czy konto należy do NIP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the return values (TAK/NIE and requestId as proof) and the legal/payment context. It omits other relevant behavior such as read-only nature, error handling, and whether the result depends on the optional date.

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 tightly written sentences front-load the core check and then add the legally relevant threshold and return values. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 simple lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the purpose, payment context, and return shape. It is nearly complete, though it could mention edge cases such as invalid NIPs, accounts not found, and the role of the date parameter.

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 explains nip, konto, and the optional data parameter. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond implicitly referencing the NIP and bank account.

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 uses a specific verb ('Sprawdza') and resource ('rachunek bankowy ... przypisany do danego NIP') and states the White List scope. It effectively distinguishes this account-to-NIP check from the sibling biala_lista_nip, which is about the NIP itself.

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 gives a clear usage context: verifying an account for payments above 15,000 PLN. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name biala_lista_nip as the alternative for NIP-only checks.

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