Oferty klienta EstiCRM

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the list is 'ograniczona' and filtered to one client, but does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination or response ordering. With strong annotation coverage, 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 a single concise sentence with no filler and the key limitation is front-loaded. It is not overlong, though it could have added a sentence about alternatives without becoming verbose.

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, two-parameter retrieval tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It communicates the core purpose and scope, while schema and annotations carry the remaining details. The only clear gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented `id_klienta` parameter. It partially does by explaining that the offers belong to one client. The `limit` parameter is already well covered by its schema description, so no additional explanation is needed there.

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, 'Pobiera' (fetches), names the resource, 'ograniczoną listę ofert', and clearly scopes it to 'przypisanych do jednego klienta'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like the general list of offers or offer details, even though no sibling is named.

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 when to use the tool: when you need a limited list of offers for one client. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling should be preferred instead, such as esticrm_lista_ofert for unfiltered offer lists.

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