ezd_api3_search_paper_outflow

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses that this is a read-only operation, and the description's 'Wyszukaj' is consistent with that. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the search scope, such as pagination, result limits, or authentication needs. With annotations covering the safety profile, a mid-range score is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It states the action, the object, the system, and the key search criteria efficiently.

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 description is minimally adequate for a read-only search tool: it names the resource and the search keys. However, with no output schema and all parameters optional, it leaves the agent without clear guidance on the expected return shape or whether at least one ID parameter must be supplied.

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 already documents all five parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that search is by return-document ID or correspondence ID, but it does not clarify whether one ID is required, whether both can be combined, or how the optional owner/CID parameters affect behavior.

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 uses the specific verb 'Wyszukaj' and identifies the resource as paper outflows / traditional outgoing correspondence in EZD PUW. It also specifies the search keys (return document ID or correspondence ID), making the purpose unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling ezd_api3_search_epuap_outflow, which targets EPUAP outflows.

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 gives clear context that this is for paper/traditional outgoing correspondence, which implicitly excludes EPUAP/electronic flows. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, when-not-to-use conditions, or advise which parameter combination is appropriate for a given scenario.

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