Zdekoduj kod klasyfikacyjny

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Wyjaśnia' signals an informational, non-mutating operation, and 'w kontekście jego klasy zagrożenia' adds useful context about the hazardClass dependency. However, it does not describe what the explanation returns or any error/side-effect behavior, though that is less critical for a simple explainer tool.

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 a single well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, gives two concrete examples, and clarifies the hazard-class relationship, all without 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 tool, the description is practically complete: the schema fully documents both parameters, and the description supplies the domain context and examples. There is no output schema, and the description could go further by stating what the explanation looks like, but the low complexity and clear purpose make this a strong, usable definition.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter detail in the description. The description adds the domain field name 'classificationCode' and repeats examples already present in the schema, which provides marginal value but not significant new semantic meaning.

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 ('Wyjaśnia') and resource (kod klasyfikacyjny towaru / classificationCode), and gives concrete examples ('FT1', '1.1D') along with the hazard-class context. This clearly differentiates it from sibling decoding tools like decode_tank_code and decode_hazard_id by naming the target field.

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 provides clear usage context: use this tool when you need to explain a goods classification code in relation to its hazard class. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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