Poland EV Charging Stations API – Official EIPA

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

Far beyond the annotations: it discloses anonymisation/skipping of possibly-private operators, the shared demo-account rate limit and refusal behavior, the 300 s wait, the 100-item / 256 KiB truncation cap, and that each call starts a paid Apify run billed per delivered item. It also reconciles the read-only claim with the fact that onlyNew keeps a stateKey memory in the user's own account, which is exactly the nuance an agent needs. Minor gap: it does not spell out cache/live-download limits beyond the inline mention.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and each subsequent clause carries real information (auth fallback, anonymisation, billing, truncation). However, it is a single dense block that mixes purpose, credentials, billing, and return shape, so a reader must parse the whole paragraph to find the cost and token rules.

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 16-parameter tool with no output schema, the description still states the return shape ({items, truncated}), the item cap (maxItems ≤100, 256 KiB), the total register size (~7,500), and the auth/billing model. Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema treats locally: includeLiveData unlocks live point status and ad-hoc prices, onlyNew depends on stateKey memory, and privateOperators controls whether records arrive anonymised. It does not re-explain filters like cities or minPowerKw, which the schema already covers well.

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 first sentence names a specific resource (EV, CNG/LNG and hydrogen stations in Poland), the authoritative source (official EIPA register run by UDT), and the returned fields (operator, address, GPS, power, connectors). It also explicitly routes fleet statistics queries to polish-vehicle-registrations-cepik, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings 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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('for charging infrastructure'), names the alternative for a different need ('for vehicle fleet statistics use polish-vehicle-registrations-cepik'), and gives operating guidance on credentials (without eipaToken it falls back to a shared demo account capped at 10 static downloads/hour, so pass your own free reader token for regular use). Cost and run-time prerequisites are also surfaced.

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