ezd_dokument_location

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the location is returned as a structured object or whether any side effects occur.

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. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, and the system context 'EZD PUW' adds useful scoping without unnecessary length.

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 tool has no output schema and six parameters with no required ones, yet the description does not explain what the response looks like or which parameter combination should be used to locate a document. It is minimally adequate for a straightforward read-only tool because the input schema is fully documented, but an agent would benefit from more context.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters including the nested Lokalizacje object. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the verb ('Pobierz informacje') and the resource ('lokalizacji dokumentu'), so an agent can tell this tool is about retrieving document location. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ezd_dokument_get_metadata or ezd_dokument_get_content, but the location focus is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no context about prerequisites, and no mention of which identifiers are needed. It only restates the basic purpose, leaving selection reasoning entirely to the agent.

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