Wyszukiwanie lokalizacji EstiCRM

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the search uses a short phrase and limits results, but does not disclose behavior like partial matching, case sensitivity, or empty-result handling. With annotations handling the main risk disclosure, 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?

A single concise Polish sentence conveys both the action and the limit behavior without wasted words. Information density is high and the most important detail (search by phrase) comes first.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema and robust annotations, the description is nearly complete. The main gap is the absence of any note on where location data comes from or how it connects to related entities, but that is not essential for invoking the tool correctly.

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%: only limit has a description. The description partially compensates by indicating fraza is a short phrase used for searching and that results are limited, but it doesn't elaborate on matching semantics or expected input format. This is enough to make both parameters understandable, but not a strong compensation.

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 verb and resource: 'Wyszukuje lokalizacje' (searches locations) by a short phrase with a result limit. This clearly distinguishes it from its siblings, which operate on different entities (offers, clients, agents, investments, offices).

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 context is clear: an agent should call this when it needs to find locations from a short text phrase. No sibling tool provides a similar location search, so explicit exclusion of alternatives is unnecessary; however, the description does not state when not to use it or how it relates to list_inwestycji or list_biur.

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