ezd_pracownik_get_all

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds the useful scope that the result is 'all' employees for a specific unit. However, it does not mention pagination, limits, return shape, or any other behavioral details beyond that scoping statement.

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?

One short, direct sentence with the verb, object, and scope all present and no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simple read-only list operation with fully documented parameters and a readOnlyHint, the description plus schema are largely sufficient. It would be more complete with a note on the return shape or a hint about which sibling (e.g., ezd_pracownik_get_by_unit) to use instead.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents every parameter. The description's 'danej jednostki organizacyjnej' maps to IdJednostki, but this adds no meaning beyond the schema description 'Identyfikator jednostki organizacyjnej.'

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 specific verb ('Pobierz' = get) and resource ('pracownikow' = employees) scoped to an organizational unit, so an agent can tell it is a read/list operation. It does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling ezd_pracownik_get_by_unit, so it misses the top score.

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 states only what the tool does and gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as ezd_pracownik_get or ezd_pracownik_get_by_unit. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or cross-references to siblings.

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