Posiedzenia Sejmu

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine behavior beyond that: the default result window, the caveat that sumy still aggregate over the whole term, an output-size hint (~11 tys. znaków), and that planowane adds not-yet-numbered sittings. It stops short of describing ordering or pagination details, so it is not a full 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 most important points (what is returned, default window, alternatives, cross-reference) are front-loaded in a compact paragraph with no filler. It is dense and information-rich, though the parenthetical about sumy mid-sentence slightly taxes readability.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value documentation is not required, and the description covers defaults, alternatives, aggregation caveat and a cross-tool handoff. Nothing an agent needs to call 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 interaction semantics not present in the schema: it clarifies how wszystkie relates to od/do (whole term vs. specific period) and that default filtering does not narrow the sumy aggregates. That is meaningful parameter behavior beyond field-level docs.

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 (listing Sejm sittings of a given term) and enumerates the returned fields: numer, daty, stan, liczba głosowań oraz numer ostatniego zakończonego posiedzenia. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like porzadek_posiedzenia and glosowania_posiedzenia, which it explicitly cross-references.

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 routing: no od/do yields the 10 most recent plus upcoming sittings, wszystkie=true yields the whole term, od/do selects a specific period, and agenda-with-votes is delegated to glosowania_posiedzenia with porzadek=true. Both the default and the alternatives are spelled out rather than implied.

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