Get Buyer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, and the optional contractors behavior is disclosed. However, it does not mention NIP validation, error/not-found behavior, or that include_winning_contractors could trigger heavier computation.

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?

The description is short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and both examples earn their place by demonstrating parameter usage. There is no redundant or boilerplate 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 read-only lookup with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main inputs and optional behavior. It could add a note on when to use get_contractor instead, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that nip identifies the procuring entity and that include_winning_contractors controls whether top winning contractors are returned. The two examples show realistic call forms and how to set the boolean, though NIP format and default behavior are left to the schema.

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 and resource: it retrieves a procuring entity (zamawiający) profile by NIP, with an optional enrichment of frequently winning contractors. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contractor and search_entities.

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 provides clear context: use this when you have a buyer's NIP and want a buyer profile, optionally with top winning contractors. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, which prevents a 5.

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