ezd_dokument_get_metadata

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description's verb 'Pobierz' (fetch) is consistent with that. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations already give: it does not mention what metadata fields are returned, whether document content is excluded, or potential auth/ownership requirements. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not substantially enrich them.

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 one short sentence with no redundant text. It is concise and understandable, though it could be improved by front-loading a bit more context such as the result type or differentiating from content retrieval.

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?

In the context of a read-only metadata fetch with a single required parameter and full schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. However, the absence of any detail about the response shape or what 'metadata' includes, plus the large sibling toolset, leaves an agent without enough context to know exactly what will be returned or how this tool's output differs from similar getters.

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 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description's single phrase 'Pobierz metadane dokumentu' aligns with the Identyfikator parameter meaning. It does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but given full schema coverage, a 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 clear verb and resource: 'Pobierz metadane dokumentu z systemu EZD PUW' (Get document metadata from the EZD PUW system). It is specific enough to distinguish itself from siblings like ezd_dokument_get_content or ezd_dokument_update. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as ezd_dokument_get_content, and 'metadane' could be slightly ambiguous without schema context.

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 a get/read use case but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. With over 100 sibling tools, it doesn't clarify when to choose this over ezd_dokument_get_content or ezd_dokument_get_marked. The read-only annotation is a signal but not stated in the description.

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