ezd_api3_search_epuap_inflow

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a no-side-effect operation, and 'Wyszukaj' is consistent with that. The description adds scope (ePUAP inflows in EZD PUW) but discloses no additional behavioral details such as empty-result behavior, pagination, or permissions; it 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 focused sentence in Polish carries the verb, object, scope, and lookup criteria with no filler. The key distinguishing information ('przesylki przychodzace', 'z ePUAP') is front-loaded.

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 lookup with a fully parameter-documented schema, the description plus annotations are minimally sufficient. Still, because there is no output schema and the description does not clarify which of the two CID-like parameters (CID vs IdentyfikatorKorelacjiCID) is intended for search, an agent may need additional domain knowledge to invoke it optimally.

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 all five parameters are individually documented. The description's mention of 'identyfikatorze dokumentu lub korelacji CID' maps to IdentyfikatorDokumentu and the CID-related parameters, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Wyszukaj wplywy (przesylki przychodzace) z ePUAP w EZD PUW' and narrows the operation by criteria 'po identyfikatorze dokumentu lub korelacji CID.' This clearly distinguishes it from lookups like ezd_api3_get_inflows and from the sibling ezd_api3_search_epuap_outflow via 'przychodzace' (incoming) and the ePUAP source.

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 appropriate use case: finding an incoming ePUAP shipment when a document identifier or CID is known. However, it never states when to prefer this over ezd_api3_get_inflows or ezd_api3_search_epuap_outflow, nor what not to use it for, so the guidance is only implicit.

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