Akt prawny: status, wejście w życie, zmiany

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: relations come back in titled chunks, per-kind counts are available in odpowiedz and powiazania[].liczba so no list fetch is needed to count them, and stanPrawnyNa is the date the consolidated text was prepared. It does not describe output shape beyond that, which is acceptable given an output schema 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?

Purpose and routing are front-loaded in the opening sentences and the density is high with little filler. It is long and repeats some parameter examples already in the schema, which keeps it from a 5, but each sentence carries an operational instruction.

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 4-parameter, one-required read tool with a full output schema and rich annotations, the definition covers addressing (don't guess), pagination via powiazaniaLimit/Przesuniecie, count access, consolidated-text semantics, and cross-tool handoff to proces. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond it: it warns that adres must come from szukaj_aktow rather than being guessed, explains that kolokwial terms like 'nowelizacje' work for powiazania, and clarifies that tekst concerns only this act while najnowszyTekstJednolity.html gives the latest consolidated format.

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 resource (one legal act from the ELI database) and enumerates the exact content returned: legal status, entry-into-force date, promulgation, issuer, keywords, parliamentary prints, and typed relations to other acts. It differentiates from proces and szukaj_aktow, but does not explicitly contrast with tresc_aktu, the closest sibling for full act text, so it falls short of a clean 5.

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?

Explicit routing rules are given: the eli field from proces is the address for this tool, addresses must not be guessed but taken from szukaj_aktow, and drukiSejmowe[].proces should be forwarded to proces for presidential signature/veto/TK referrals. It also directs the agent to use this act's 'Akty zmieniające' relation for the latest amendment rather than a title search, naming the alternative approach to avoid.

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