ezd_pracownik_get

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as default owner selection or response shape, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. The action and object are front-loaded, though the lack of routing information keeps it from being a 5.

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?

Given that annotations cover read-only safety and the schema documents all optional parameters, the structured data carries much of the burden. However, the description is still too thin to fully clarify which employee is returned, how the tool is selected among the many getter siblings, or what the response contains, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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% and each parameter already has descriptive meaning, including defaults to EZD_WORKER_ID and EZD_POSITION_ID and auto-generation for CID. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Pobierz dane pracownika z systemu EZD PUW' (get employee data from EZD PUW). It is not a tautology, but it does not distinguish this getter from sibling tools like ezd_pracownik_get_all, ezd_pracownik_get_by_unit, or ezd_api1_get_worker.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many employee-related siblings. The description does not say whether it fetches a single employee by default context, whether identifiers are required, or which scenarios call for this variant instead of another.

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