KRS — odpis aktualny

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Pobiera" implies a read-only lookup and the field list usefully describes the response content, but it does not disclose error behavior for invalid/not-found KRS numbers, rate limits, caching, or any auth requirements.

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 states the action and resource immediately, then lists the returned fields. Every element earns its place with no 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?

For a simple three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the key returned fields and the schema fully documents inputs. It is nearly complete, though it could still mention error handling or response format more explicitly.

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 all three parameters (krs, pelny, rejestr) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

Uses a specific verb ("Pobiera") plus the exact resource ("aktualny odpis z Krajowego Rejestru Sądowego") and enumerates the returned content. The sibling tools cover unrelated domains (NIP validation, white list, NBP rates), so there is no realistic ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 the use case—retrieving a current KRS extract—but gives no explicit when-to-use conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing. Sibling tools are in different domains, so ambiguity is low, but usage guidance remains only implicit.

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