search_units

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by stating the return value (unit IDs for `get_data`) and by defining level code meanings (0, 2, 5, 6), which explain how the `level` parameter changes results. The word 'Search' implies a read-only operation; however, it does not discuss auth, error behavior, or pagination, slightly limiting transparency.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the output usage follows, and the level mapping is presented concisely as a legend. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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 search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers what results are for and the meaning of an ambiguous parameter. It could be more complete by stating that omitting `level` searches across all levels or by describing the exact response shape, but these are minor gaps.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by decoding the `level` parameter values (0=Kraj, 2=Województwo, etc.), which the schema only describes as 'Optional territorial level (0..7)'. It does not add detail for `limit` or `name`, but the schema already provides adequate descriptions for those.

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 ('territorial units'), backed by concrete examples (voivodeships, powiats, gminas). It distinguishes itself from siblings by targeting a specific entity type while noting the output feeds `get_data`, which is a distinct purpose from `search_subjects` or `search_variables`.

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 provides clear context: use this to find territorial unit IDs for use with `get_data`. It implicitly signals when to use this tool versus siblings by focusing on territorial units, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives by name.

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