ezd_jednostka_get_by_id

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

readOnlyHint=true already discloses the safety profile, and the description is fully consistent with it — no contradiction. Yet the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation: no mention of missing-ID behavior, return format, or permission requirements. Since the annotation covers the essential trait for a read operation, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 Polish sentence naming the resource and the lookup key, with zero filler or repetition of the tool name. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool — 4 parameters, only 1 required, no enums, no nested objects — the schema plus the readOnlyHint annotation cover the call contract well. The only gap is the absence of an output schema or explicit return description, but for a get-by-id tool the return value (the organizational unit) is self-evident from the description.

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% — all four parameters (CID, IdentyfikatorJednostki, IdPracownikaWlasciciela, IdStanowiskaWlasciciela) carry descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description merely reinforces that IdentyfikatorJednostki is the lookup key, which the schema already states, so it stays at the baseline of 3 without adding new meaning.

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 'Pobierz jednostkę organizacyjną po jej identyfikatorze' states a specific verb (pobierz/retrieve), a concrete resource (jednostka organizacyjna/organizational unit), and the lookup method (by identifier). The by-ID scope inherently distinguishes this from the sibling ezd_jednostka_get_all, which retrieves all units, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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 usage context is implied: call this when you hold a unit identifier and need that single organizational unit. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as ezd_jednostka_get_all for bulk retrieval, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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