Głosowania na posiedzeniu

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: batched pagination (default and max 30, shrinking for long titles to stay under ~20k chars), the non-obvious rule that the next page uses przesuniecie equal to nastepnePrzesuniecie rather than przesuniecie+limit, term inference from an out-of-term date, and how porzadek restructures output (with a 'Pozostałe głosowania' bucket). This is exactly the operational context annotations cannot carry.

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 the resource and its output shape before the usage rules, and every sentence carries operational information (pagination, mode switching, sibling routing). It is dense and would read better with light structuring, but there is no filler to cut.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; the description covers the remaining decision points — which mode, whether to pass data, how to page, how the term is resolved, and which sibling handles detail. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning the schema does not: that omitting data yields a whole-sitting tally, that limit=1 is the idiom for aggregate questions, and the precise offset-chaining rule for przesuniecie. It leaves minor gaps (e.g. odPunktu is only lightly covered) but clearly exceeds the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it returns the votes (głosowania) of one sitting or one day, including threshold-derived verdicts and a tally of adopted/rejected/quorum-appeal/election votes. It explicitly routes detail/club-breakdown requests to the sibling tool glosowanie, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 when-to-use rules: call WITHOUT the data parameter (e.g. limit=1) for 'how many / how many adopted at this sitting' questions because the tally then covers the whole sitting, and do not sum daily tallies. It also names porzadek=true as the alternative mode and points to glosowanie for details — clear conditions with named alternatives.

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