Szczegóły oferty EstiCRM

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description ('Pobiera' — fetches) is fully consistent with them, so there is no contradiction. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations — no return-format, error, or availability notes — but for a simple read operation the annotated safety profile covers the main concerns. Adequate but unexceptional.

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?

A single, grammatically simple sentence that front-loads the action and stops. There is zero filler, and the length is appropriate for a one-parameter read-only tool. Every word earns its place.

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?

With one required parameter, an output schema present, and annotations carrying the read-only/idempotent/non-destrucive profile, the description covers the essentials for invoking this tool correctly. The only real gap is routing guidance versus the sibling offer tools, which belongs to the usage dimension. For the tool's low complexity, nothing critical is missing.

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 must compensate, and it only re-states what the parameter name `id_oferty` already conveys: the identifier selects the offer. No extra semantics are added — no format guidance for the string/integer union, no indication of where the ID comes from, and no behavior for unknown IDs. The parameter is self-explanatory by name, but the description adds essentially nothing beyond 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 ('Pobiera' — fetches) with a specific resource ('szczegóły jednej oferty' — details of one offer) and the access path ('po jej identyfikatorze' — by its ID). This clearly signals a single-record lookup and implicitly contrasts with the sibling list tools such as `esticrm_lista_ofert`, though no sibling is explicitly named. Clear and specific, but the sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool is mentioned anywhere in the description. An agent must infer that this tool is for retrieving one offer when the ID is already known, and that browsing or filtering belongs to `esticrm_lista_ofert` or `esticrm_oferty_klienta`. The usage context is implied by the tool's nature but never stated, with no exclusions or prerequisities.

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