Oblicz wyłączenie 1.1.3.6

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the tool 'calculates whether' goods fit the exemption and imposes unit constraints, but it does not state the return value shape or behavior on invalid/empty input.

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 concise sentences with zero redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the input requirements are compressed into the second sentence without unnecessary detail.

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?

The description covers scope, required inputs, and the relevant unit rules. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should more explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g. a boolean verdict or a detailed result object), leaving this as the main completeness gap.

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 adds practical workflow meaning: transportCategory is meant to be obtained earlier via lookup_un, and quantities follow the rules of 1.1.3.6.3. This helps an agent prepare items beyond what the schema literally states.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Liczy' and clearly identifies the exact resource: exemption 1.1.3.6 for a set of goods on one transport unit. This is precise enough to distinguish the tool from sibling lookup/decoding tools.

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?

It explains the prerequisite workflow: transportCategory must been obtained beforehand, e.g. via lookup_un, and quantities must be in kg or litres per rule 1.1.3.6.3. It gives clear context for when to use the tool but does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion cases.

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