ezd_api3_correspondence_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the read-only nature, and the description simply aligns by saying 'check' without adding behavioral depth. It doesn't disclose response format, pagination, scoping limits, or authorization requirements. The filter list merely restates what the schema already documents.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the operation and key filter categories, with no redundant words. It is appropriately compact for a tool that a query tool with optional filters.

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 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose but leaves gaps: the agent gets no guidance on response structure, default behaviors (e.g., auto-generated CID, env-based defaults), or how filter combinations are applied. It's adequate for a basic status check but not fully rich.

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 all 10 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description's mention of filtering by identifier, date, status, or type adds no meaning beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions, putting this at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Sprawdz status' = check status) and the resource ('korespondencji wychodzacej' = outgoing correspondence), and lists the main filter dimensions. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the verb 'check' makes it obvious this is a read operation versus the 'change' counterpart.

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 this is for querying and checking status, and gives filtering options, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The readOnlyHint annotation and sibling name 'ezd_api3_change_correspondence_status' provide implicit context, yet the description itself lacks explicit routing guidance.

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