Kadencje Sejmu

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the burden is light. The description adds useful scope context (coverage begins 1991, flags the currently active term), but discloses nothing about volume, caching, or refresh behavior beyond what annotations and the output schema cover.

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?

Two tight sentences: content scope is front-loaded, then a single usage clause. No filler, though the closing usage sentence is slightly imprecise ('dawnych lat') relative to the stated 1991 coverage.

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 parameterless listing tool with an output schema and full safety annotations, the description supplies adequate scope and content framing, so an agent can decide when to call it. Only the absence of explicit alternative-routing guidance keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema-side baseline is 4. The description still lists the fields returned (numer, dates, current flag, druki count), which adds orientation value even though parameters themselves need no explanation.

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?

Names a specific resource (kadencje Sejmu RP) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: number, start/end dates, which term is current, and paper count. This level of content detail clearly separates it from data-heavy siblings like druk or glosowanie, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Provides a when-to-use hint: 'Przydaje się, gdy pytanie dotyczy dawnych lat' (useful when the question concerns earlier years). However, it names no sibling tool and gives no exclusions or conditions that would route the agent between this and other reference tools.

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