Zbuduj prawidłową nazwę przewozową (PSN)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It openly states that the tool does not decide whether a modifier applies, names the external API source, and describes the returned data. It could add more detail about failure modes or exact response structure, but the key behavioral caveat is explicit.

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 definition is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and output. It contains no filler, though the long em-dash construction makes it slightly harder to parse than a short opener followed by a separate caveat.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to select and call it correctly, including the important modifier-context behavior. It could be more complete by explicitly noting the optional packingGroup parameter and describing the exact return shape, but the schema covers the parameter and the behavior is well explained.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that unNumber drives the lookup and that context, not an input parameter, decides modifier fit, but it adds little detail about packingGroup beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific action (builds a base proper shipping name) for a specific resource (UN number from api.kocie.mba) and clearly explains the output (list of modifiers with conditions). This distinguishes it from sibling lookup/search tools even without naming them.

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 makes clear the tool is for constructing a PSN and that modifier selection depends on user-provided shipping context. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over related siblings such as lookup_un or search_adr, nor does it state exclusions.

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