Posiedzenia komisji sejmowych

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses newest-first ordering, that joint meetings with other committees are included, the 7-day window cap, and a partial-result failure mode signalled by the wynikCzesciowy field with an instruction to warn the user first.

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?

One dense paragraph with the three modes front-loaded and no filler; every clause carries operational meaning. It would read better broken into bullets, but nothing is wasted.

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 an 8-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the mode logic, the code dependency on a sibling tool, pagination/limit behavior, and the degraded-result case — an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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 individual parameter meaning is already carried by the schema and baseline would be 3. The description adds real cross-parameter semantics the schema does not state — how data/do/od interact across the three modes and that 'razem' is a count of meeting numbers rather than days.

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 (committee meetings) and enumerates three distinct invocation modes keyed on which parameters are supplied. An agent can tell exactly what each mode returns without opening the 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 routes mode selection (data-only vs. code vs. code+numer), names the sibling tool 'komisje' as the source of committee codes, and even maps a concrete user question ('ile posiedzeń...') to mode (2) with a stated interpretation rule for the count.

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