ezd_addin_get_doc_ids_for_print

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds no behavioral detail beyond that. It does not describe the return format, whether a list of IDs is returned, or anything about the token lifecycle or side effects.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy; the key operation and object are front-loaded. It is concise without losing clarity for this simple 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?

The definition is minimally viable because the schema covers parameter semantics and the annotation covers safety. However, with no output schema, the return shape is not specified, and the description does not situate the tool within the print token/attachment workflow.

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 100%, so every parameter already has a meaningful description in the input schema. The tool description itself contributes no additional parameter context, which is acceptable under the high-coverage baseline.

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 operation ('Pobierz' — fetch) and a concrete resource ('identyfikatory dokumentow do druku' — document identifiers for printing), scoped to the Addin/EZD PUW context. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like ezd_addin_get_attachment_for_print or ezd_addin_create_print_token.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool, whether a PrintToken must first be obtained via ezd_addin_create_print_token, or which sibling to prefer in different scenarios. The phrase 'przez Addin' only establishes context, not selection criteria.

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