ezd_api3_get_rwa_folder_number

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation covers the safety profile, and the description adds useful scope context (unit and year binding). However, 'kolejny' (next) raises an unresolved question of whether retrieving the number advances a sequence; the description does not address counter semantics or what the returned value represents.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with zero filler. The unit/year scoping is placed at the end without bloating the sentence.

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?

Adequate for a read-only getter whose 9 parameters are all schema-documented, but with no output schema the description leaves the return format implied, and it never explains why ownership parameters (IdPracownikaWlasciciela, etc.) are relevant to fetching the next number or how this relates to the create/delete RWA siblings.

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 every parameter is already documented. The description only loosely maps to Rocznik and JednostkaIdOryginal via 'dla danej jednostki i rocznika' and adds no format or relationship details beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline.

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 and resource: 'Pobierz kolejny numer teczki RWA' (get the next RWA folder number) with scoping context ('dla danej jednostki i rocznika' — for a given unit and year). The read verb naturally distinguishes it from mutation siblings ezd_api3_create_rwa_folder_number and ezd_api3_delete_rwa_folder_number.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided. The directly adjacent sibling ezd_api3_create_rwa_folder_number exists, and the description never clarifies that this tool only fetches a suggested number rather than creating a folder, so an agent could plausibly pick the wrong RWA tool.

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