ezd_dokument_get_marked

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already covers the safety profile, but the description adds no behavioral detail beyond that: no pagination behavior, no return format, no note about what 'marked' means, and no clarification about the 'Pobrane' (already downloaded) flag. The date-range phrase merely repeats the DataOznaczeniaOd/Do schema fields rather than disclosing new behavior.

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 clear sentence with no filler, and the key action and object are front-loaded. It is efficiently terse, although it is so short that it leaves little room to convey additional 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?

For a simple read-only list operation with full parameter coverage in the schema, the description is minimally viable. However, there is no output schema and no description of what the returned list contains, and no guidance distinguishes this tool from other listing tools. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 in the input schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the date-range concept, which the schema fields already convey. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Pobierz' = get) and resource ('liste dokumentow oznaczonych' = list of marked documents) within a date range. This makes its purpose clear and, combined with the tool name, distinguishes it from sibling document tools such as ezd_dokument_get_content or ezd_koszulka_list_documents. It stops short of 5 because it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling tool.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. No sibling tools or exclusionary conditions are mentioned, and among roughly a hundred siblings an agent gets no help choosing between this and other document-listting tools. The only usage signal is implied by the tool's own description.

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