Kluby i koła poselskie

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: data is 'as of today', the fuzzy-match fallback (colloquial abbreviation or partial name resolved to the registry abbreviation only when unambiguous), and that last-changes are included by default.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the no-parameter case first, then the parameter case, then the extra last-changes payload. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; only minor redundancy in the closing restatement of what the no-parameter mode adds.

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-shape detail is unnecessary, and the description still covers both invocation modes, matching behavior, and a default payload. Complete enough for a 2-param read tool; only the absence of any comparison to related tools (e.g. komisje) leaves a sliver of ambiguity.

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 meaningfully extends it: it explains the matching semantics for 'klub' (colloquial shorthand like "PSL" resolved to "PSL-TD" when unambiguous) rather than just repeating the schema's example values.

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 resource (kluby i koła w Sejmie danej kadencji) with concrete output fields, and clearly describes the two modes: no parameter returns the roster with member counts and type; with 'klub' returns one club with name, contact, logo, composition and entry dates. An agent can distinguish this from komisje or grupy_bilateralne without opening a 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?

Explicitly splits behavior by presence/absence of the 'klub' parameter, telling the agent what each mode yields and that the no-parameter mode also returns recent club-switching. It does not name sibling tools or state when another tool would be preferable, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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