ezd_api3_register_correspondence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carrie the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only says correspondence will be registered; it does not explain permissions, reversibility, return behavior, ID auto-generation, or whether any downstream approvals/processes are triggered.

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 very short, front-loaded, and easy to parse. A small deduction is warranted because the Typ/Strefa detail duplicates already-structured schema information, so the limited prose space could have delivered more net-new 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?

The schema covers all eight parameters at 100%, so the description can stay focused on intent. It provides that intent and the allowed core values, but with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves side effects and sibling-tool routing mostly implicit — minimum viable, but not fully complete.

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 repeats Typ and Strefa, but those values are already documented in the schema; it adds no new parameter meaning beyond the structured definitions.

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 concrete action ('register') and a distinct resource ('outgoing correspondence in EZD PUW'), with the core typ/zone constraints also made explicit. The word 'wychodząca' clearly separates this from incoming/inflow tools, though it does not name sibling tools directly.

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 alternatives are named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement. The restriction to KOPERTA, MAIL, or FAX plus 'wychodzaca' implies this is for outgoing paper/mail/fax rather than incoming, EPUAP, or e-Doreczenia registration, but the agent has to infer that.

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