ezd_api3_get_letter_subjects

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description's 'Pobierz' aligns with that. The description adds contextual scope (what is fetched and via which identifiers) but does not disclose return format, pagination, error behavior, or what happens when neither identifier is provided. With annotations covering the main behavioral trait, this is adequate but not rich.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource, then states the lookup criteria. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and no unnecessary context.

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 read-only fetch tool with five documented parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the return concept (podmioty/strony), the input identifiers, and the system context. It could be more explicit about needing at least one of IdPisma/ZnakSprawy and about the response shape, but the schema and annotation cover most operational needs.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by expressing that IdPisma and ZnakSprawy are alternative lookup keys ('po ID pisma lub znaku sprawy'), a relationship not explicit in the individual schema entries. This goes beyond what the schema alone states.

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 verb ('Pobierz' = fetch) and a clearly defined resource: entities/parties associated with a letter in EZD PUW. It also specifies the two lookup paths (letter ID or case reference), and the name/description distinguish it from the sibling add_letter_subject tool.

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 when to use the tool — when you need subjects/parties for a letter and have either IdPisma or ZnakSprawy. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives like ezd_api3_get_addressee or ezd_api3_add_letter_subject, leaving the routing partially to inference.

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