Profil posła

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real context beyond that: the statistics are the Sejm's own numbers rather than a local computation, klub reflects the current affiliation, and id semantics differ across terms. No return-format disclosure, but the output schema covers that.

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?

Long, but every clause carries distinct information (payload fields, statistics semantics, flag behaviours, id/term caveat) and the primary payload is front-loaded. The parenthetical parameter syntax is slightly dense but not wasteful.

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 6-parameter tool with an output schema documented separately, the description covers everything an agent needs: the identity/term caveat, all flag interactions, the date-range semantics, and the source of the statistics. No material gap remains.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, yet the description goes further: it explains that dni=true adds a per-sitting-day breakdown, posiedzenia=true aggregates per sitting, and od/do are inclusive and populate the 'zakres' field, with a worked example (od=2025-01-01, do=2025-12-31).

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 concrete resource (poseł's registry record) and enumerates the payload: klub, okręg, głosy, dane biograficzne, ślubowanie, wygaśnięcie mandatu, plus voting statistics scoped to a Sejm term. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like znajdz_posla (search) or glosy_posla_w_dniu (per-day votes).

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 the agent: numeric id is valid only within one kadencja, so an MP in another term must be located via znajdz_posla. It also warns that klub is today's affiliation and that a day-specific klub must come from glosowanie via poselId, which prevents misuse.

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