Interpelacja lub zapytanie: szczegóły i treść

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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered, and the description layers on genuinely useful behavior: the server extracts text from PDF only after odpowiedzKlucz is given, cannot read scans lacking a text layer, and returns wynikCzesciowy on timeout/Sejm failure/limit. These are real operational caveats beyond the structured fields.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph; the key framing 'Jedno pismo' is front-loaded, and the partial-result handling sentence earns its place, but the middle clauses about addressee attribution and signed-vs-motion answers are verbose and could be tightened.

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 values need not be explained, and the description covers the important edge cases (PDF-only answers, unreadable scans, partial results). It is essentially complete for an agent to call it correctly, missing only explicit sibling guidance.

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 already 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: odpowiedzKlucz triggers server-side PDF reading, and the 'w porcjach' phrasing connects to the 'od' offset parameter for chunked long text. It does not cover every field (numer, kadencja) but meaningfully explains the non-obvious ones.

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?

Opens with 'Jedno pismo' (a single letter) and enumerates what is returned: adresaci with deadline and status, answers with PDF addresses, and optional plain-text content. This is a specific verb+resource framing that separates it from the sibling search tool szukaj_pism, 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 implies when to pass odpowiedzKlucz (to pull the answer body) and instructs the agent to surface partial results ('powiedz to użytkownikowi na początku odpowiedzi'), but it offers no explicit when-not-to-use and does not route the agent to alternative tools like szukaj_pism or druk.

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