ksef_draft_get

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. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the response includes full draft data with calculated amounts, which matters because no output schema is provided. 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main operation is front-loaded, and the return-value note is placed second. 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 one-parameter get-by-ID tool, the description is largely complete: the parameter is clear from the schema, the safety profile is covered by annotations, and the description tells the agent what kind of data is returned. Exact response fields are unspecified, but the 'full data with calculated amounts' phrasing provides sufficient orientation.

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?

The schema fully covers the only parameter with type 'string' and description 'ID draftu (UUID)', so the description does not need to add much. The phrase 'po ID' adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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') with a clear resource ('draft faktury') and lookup mode ('po ID'). It is easily distinguished from list/create/update/delete operations, though it does not explicitly compare itself to ksef_draft_render_xml or ksef_invoice_get.

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 implies usage when you have a draft ID and need full draft data, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over ksef_draft_list, ksef_draft_render_xml, or ksef_invoice_get. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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