Druk sejmowy

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/destructive-free, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial semantics: the distinction between dataDokumentu (authoring date) and doreczono (delivery to MPs), plus the cross-cadence caveat with a concrete example (druk 164). It does not discuss pagination or error behavior for an unknown numer, keeping it shy of a 5.

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 front-loaded first clause states the resource and payload efficiently; the date-semantics guidance is dense and useful. The historical example (druk 164 with three dates) is long but earns its place as disambiguation, so only slight verbosity cost.

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 single-record lookup with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return shape, the description supplies the one thing that cannot be inferred — the meaning and interrelation of the date fields and where the true 'influence' date lives. Nothing an agent needs to answer correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (numer format, kadencja default/min/max). The description adds no syntax or defaulting detail for either parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

It states precisely that the tool returns a single Sejm print ('Jeden druk sejmowy') and enumerates the payload — title, dates, related processes, file addresses, and附加 druki. The singular scope implicitly separates it from the sibling search tool szukaj_drukow, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

It directly instructs how to answer the common question 'when did it reach the Sejm' — do not use dataDokumentu, use the proces tool's wszczeto field — and warns that across cadences the dates can diverge by years, telling the agent to report which date applies. It names the alternative tool (proces) and the condition selecting it.

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