wyszukaj_transakcje

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that transactions come from notarial deeds, uses WGS84 with bbox order (south, west, north, east), and gives detailed rationale for the filtering flags (e.g., without only_mieszkalne, garages and storage units distort price per m²). It does not mention rate limits, response sorting, or error behavior, but is fairly transparent for a read-only search.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by a practical hint about finding bbox, then a well-structured Args list. Each parameter description is concise yet informative, with no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema defaults.

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 8 parameters and no annotations, the description addresses all parameters, defaults, and filter semantics, and includes a cross-reference to znajdz_obszar as a prerequisite. Since an output schema exists, the lack of return-value details is acceptable. The description is sufficiently complete for a complex tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates: every parameter (bbox, typ, rodzaj_rynku, data_od, data_do, tylko_mieszkalne, tylko_rynkowe, limit) is explained with values, defaults, and intent. For example, typ enums are expanded into 'lokale (mieszkania), budynki, dzialki' and date inclusivity is specified ('włącznie').

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 'Zwraca rzeczywiste transakcje nieruchomościami (z aktów notarialnych) w danym obszarze' – a specific verb (returns), resource (transactions), and scope (area). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like znajdz_obszar and statystyki_cen by focusing on raw transaction data from notarial deeds.

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?

Gives explicit workflow guidance: bbox is best obtained via 'znajdz_obszar', positioning this tool in a pipeline. It also clarifies when to set only_mieszkalne=False and only_rynkowe=False to include all records. However, it does not mention alternatives or when to use statystyki_cen instead, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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