Lista biur EstiCRM

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds only the mild behavioral trait that the returned list is limited/restricted, without detailing ordering, default cap, pagination, or completeness; this is adequate but not rich.

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 one short sentence with the key information front-loaded: action, resource, and limiting behavior. There is no wasted wording, and the size is appropriate for a one-parameter read-only 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 simple list tool, the description together with the rich annotations, fully documented limit parameter, and presence of an output schema is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Nothing critical is missing for this low-complexity operation.

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?

There is exactly one parameter, 'limit', and the input schema documents it fully with a default, minimum, maximum, and a clear description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the vague word 'ograniczoną', so the schema carries the burden; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('pobiera' – retrieves) and a distinct resource ('listę biur' – list of offices), and signals that the result is limited. This differentiates it from sibling list tools such as lista_ofert, lista_agentow, and lista_inwestycji by resource.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not mention any alternatives or exclusions relative to the sibling tools. Usage must be inferred entirely from the resource name and the generic verb, so the tool does not help an agent decide between this and other list tools.

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