Sprawdź LQ/EQ dla numeru UN

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the data source and that the tool returns values, making the read-only nature inferable, but it does not describe edge cases, response format, or behavior when no LQ/EQ data exists.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action, the target resource, and the data source efficiently.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of contextual detail, yet it omits the packingGroup parameter's role and any output or failure behavior. An agent calling this tool would still need additional schema or external knowledge to use all parameters meaningfully.

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 only 50%: unNumber is documented in the schema, but packingGroup has no description. The tool description mentions only the UN number and does not clarify the meaning or effect of the optional packingGroup parameter, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Zwraca' / returns) and a precise resource: LQ and EQ limits for a UN number, sourced from specific fields. This clearly differentiates it from broader siblings like lookup_un or search_adr by naming the exact output domain.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need limited/excepted quantity limits for a UN number. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or which alternative tool to prefer for other lookups, leaving routing decisions mostly to inference.

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