znajdz_obszar

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 key behaviors: possible multiple matches ("Może zwrócić więcej niż jedno dopasowanie"), cache building on first use per level ("Pierwsze wyszukanie na danym poziomie buduje lokalny cache z danych GUGIK"), and the retry mechanism when cache isn't ready ("po prostu powtórz to samo wywołanie za kilkadziesiąt sekund"). This goes well beyond the schema.

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 well-structured: purpose, usage link, disambiguation note, then a concise Args list. Every sentence provides necessary information—no fluff. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 2 parameters and includes operational details without being verbose.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and is a search/geocoding utility, the description covers all essentials: purpose, parameter semantics, output usage, ambiguity handling, and cache behavior. It's self-contained for an agent to invoke correctly and handle edge cases.

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 0%, but the description's Args section fully explains both parameters: `nazwa` with examples ("Warszawa", "Zakopane", "Zalipie") and `poziom` with enum values, default, and cache behavior. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema, making parameter usage clear.

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 clearly states the tool's function: "Wyszukuje województwo/powiat/gminę/miasto/wieś po nazwie i zwraca jej bbox." It specifies the verb (wyszukuje), resource (administrative units), and output (bbox). It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly tying its result to `wyszukaj_transakcje`/`statystyki_cen`, making the purpose unique.

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: "Użyj wyniku (`bbox`) jako argumentu `bbox` w `wyszukaj_transakcje`/`statystyki_cen`." It explains the tool is a prerequisite for those tools and warns about multiple matches with disambiguation guidance. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the intended use case is clear.

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