ezd_api1_get_worker

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a read-only operation. The description adds little behavioral context beyond that: 'przez API1' and 'w systemie EZD PUW' are contextual identifiers, not disclosures about output, error behavior, 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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no fluff, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient but perhaps too sparse to fully inform an unfamiliar agent.

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 tool is a simple read operation with three optional, fully documented parameters, and the readOnlyHint covers safety. However, there is no output schema, and the description only vaguely implies the return ('dane pracownika') while ignoring the crowded sibling context, so completeness is moderate.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to compensate. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining when the environment-variable defaults apply.

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 clear action: 'Pobierz dane pracownika' (get employee data) via API1 in EZD PUW, which gives a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling worker getters like ezd_pracownik_get, ezd_pracownik_get_by_unit, or ezd_pracownik_get_all, so an agent must infer what makes the API1 variant unique.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of the many alternative worker retrieval tools. The description offers no scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the selection entirely to the agent's inference.

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