ezd_get_installations

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

readOnlyHint=true already communicates that the operation is a safe read. The description adds that the returned data is a list of available installations, but does not disclose auth expectations, pagination, or meaning of 'dostępnych'. With the annotation carrying the safety profile, the added behavior context is modest.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads verb and resource and contains no filler. Appropriate given the simple, read-only nature of the tool.

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 read-only tool with zero required parameters and a fully described schema, the description is almost sufficient. It states the return kind (a list of installations) but does not explain when this list is relevant or what fields the installations include; since no output schema exists, a bit more context would make it fully complete.

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 CID, IdPracownikaWlasiciela, and IdStanowiskaWlasiciela are already fully documented with defaults. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a concrete verb ('Pobierz' - get) and a specific resource ('listę dostępnych instalacji EZD PUW'), clearly stating what the tool returns. No sibling tool targets installations, so it is unambiguous even without an explicit alternative mention.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; usage must be inferred from the purpose. It is the only installation-listing tool among siblings, so direction is not critical, but the description leaves the decision context implicit.

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