Search Entities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates the core behavior (name-based search returning NIP) and the entity_type filter, but does not disclose matching semantics, result limits, or edge-case behavior; the output schema mitigates return-value ambiguity but not behavioral caveats.

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 compact: one purpose sentence plus two concrete examples. Every sentence pulls weight, and the examples are immediately actionable for an agent deciding how to call the tool.

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 moderately simple search tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it provides the primary use case, downstream consumers, and representative calls. The main missing piece is limit/result-count behavior, but the default and schema mitigate the gap.

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%, so the description needs to compensate for the parameters. It clarifies query by saying 'by name' and illustrates entity_type through examples, but it does not explain the limit parameter or its default, and the enum values are only minimally contextualized.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: search buyers (zamawiający) and contractors (wykonawcy) by name, with the explicit goal of obtaining their NIP. It also names the downstream tools that consume the NIP, which distinguishes it from sibling search tools such as search_tenders and search_cpv.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: before get_buyer, get_contractor, or search_tenders with buyer_nip, when an entity's NIP is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for the same lookup purpose, so it falls just short of a 5.

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