Wyszukaj numer UN

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-obvious behavior that one UN number may return multiple rows and explains the disambiguation mechanism. However, it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, describe the raw record format, or mention error/network behavior, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 Polish sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core function, and the second addresses the only ambiguity handling needed. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary behavior and the important multi-result edge case. It lacks explicit alternatives and read-only confirmation, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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. The description repeats the packingGroup disambiguation logic that already appears in the schema's property description, adding no new meaning beyond what the structured data 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Zwraca' – returns), a precise resource ('surowy rekord Tabeli A Umowy ADR'), an explicit source (api.kocie.mba), and the key parameter (numer UN). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_adr or decode_* that perform different operations.

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 gives a clear conditional usage instruction: if a UN number returns multiple entries, refine using packingGroup. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the exact-UN-number scope is implied strongly enough to guide selection.

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