ezd_api3_get_addressee

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with it. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond the lookup key, such as response shape, error conditions, or whether both IDs are required or mutually exclusive, but the annotation lowers the burden here.

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 entire description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core information: what is retrieved, from where, and by what criterion.

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 read-only get-by-identifier operation with fully described parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is nearly sufficient. The only mild gap is not explaining which identifier is required given that all parameters are optional in the schema, but the description still conveys the intended invocation pattern well enough.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description's mention of 'ID adresata lub adresu' adds slight semantic value by highlighting the two primary lookup modes, but it does not clarify deterministic parameter behavior or whether exactly one of them must be supplied.

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 names a specific verb ('Pobierz' = retrieve), a concrete resource ('dane adresata' = addressee data), the system ('EZD PUW'), and the lookup criterion (ID or address). This makes the tool's function unmistakable and inherently distinguishes it from search/add-addressee siblings without needing to name them.

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 phrase 'na podstawie ID adresata lub adresu' implies the tool should be used when the caller already has addressee or address identifiers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it point to alternative tools such as ezd_api3_search_addressees for identifier-less lookups.

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