ezd_api3_search_inflow_addressee

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description's 'search' verb aligns with that. The description adds the specific search scope and criteria but discloses no additional behavioral details such as pagination, result limits, or authentication requirements. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. The verb and target object come first, followed directly by the supported filter dimensions. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 search tool with 11 optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description captures the essential search dimensions and the system context (EZD PUW). It does not explicitly state that no parameters are required or what happens with an empty search, but the schema already conveys optionality, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

The schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters into meaningful search categories: address data (Lokal, Budynek, KodPocztowy, Miejscowosc), registration date (DataRejestracjiOd/Do), and email (Email). This semantic grouping helps the agent select the right filter parameters more easily than reading each schema description in isolation.

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 the imperative 'Wyszukaj' (search) and clearly identifies the resource: 'adresata/nadawce wplywu' (addressee/sender of an inflow) in EZD PUW. It also enumerates the search criteria (address data, registration date, email), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ezd_api3_get_addressee and ezd_api3_search_addressees via the specific 'inflow' scope.

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 use case: search for an inflow addressee/sender when you have address data, a registration date, or an email. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the 'inflow' qualifier provides clear context that differentiates it from generic addressee search tools.

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