Porównaj kody cystern wg reguły hierarchii

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core limitation of the rule scope, which is important. However, it does not state the return value (e.g., boolean), how invalid codes are handled, or any side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 description is two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose, and the second delivers the critical limitation. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter comparison tool without an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the regulatory basis, and the key exclusions. It does not explicitly state the return type, but the comparison semantics are inferable from the wording, making it largely sufficient for correct usage.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description merely rephrases the parameters ('alternatywa', 'wymaganej') without adding new semantic details such as format, allowed values, or examples.

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 verb ('Sprawdza'), the exact rule (ADR 4.3.3 hierarchy), and the precise relationship between 'offeredCode' and 'requiredCode'. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly excluding special provisions 4.3.5 and mandatory individual code assignment, separating it from generic ADR tools like search_adr.

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 clearly tells the agent when not to use the tool by listing exclusions (special provisions 4.3.5, mandatory individual assignment). It does not name an alternative sibling to route to, but the scope boundary is explicit and actionable enough for an agent to decide if this tool fits.

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