ezd_api3_get_inflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it is a list operation with optional date-range filtering. It does not mention pagination, limits, ordering, auth requirements, or return format, but the read-only annotation lowers the expected burden.

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?

Two short, focused sentences with zero filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, followed by the filtering instruction. Every word contributes.

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 list tool with all optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It names the resource and the primary filter. A note about alternatives or result shape would improve it, but nothing essential is missing for invoking it 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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds a general 'filter by registration date range' concept, which loosely maps to DataRejestracjiOd/Do, but provides no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the action (pobierz listę = get list), the resource (wpływów/przesyłek przychodzących = inboming shipments), and the source system (EZD PUW). It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like ezdi_api3_search_eppuap_inflow or ezdi_api3_register_inflow, so not a full 5.

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 the main use case — retrieving a list of inflows — and provides a filtering instruction by registration date range. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_epuap_inflow or search_inflow_addressee.

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