Szukaj procesów legislacyjnych

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

With annotations covering read-only/idempotent/open-world safety, the description adds real operational context: ~20k character result cap, pagination, and a partial-result failure mode ('wynikCzesciowy') with the instruction to warn the user upfront. The pagination hint 'przesuniecie=nastepnePrzesuniecie' is muddled against the schema's integer type, keeping this from a 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?

Purpose and core scoping are front-loaded, and each sentence carries substantive information about dates, states, and pagination. It is long and dense for a tool description, and the agent-directed instruction about the opening line of the reply sits awkwardly inside a tool spec.

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 10-parameter, mostly-optional search tool with an output schema, the description covers the interpretive gaps the schema cannot: date-window semantics, state semantics, colloquial-query behaviour, pagination, and partial-result handling. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears 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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning the schema lacks: the default date semantics of od/do (start, closure, or last registry change, inclusive) and how wedlugDaty narrows it. It also clarifies stan counts by state across the whole term and that the phrase may be colloquial.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Wyszukuje procesy legislacyjne') and enumerates exactly what can be matched: phrase in title OR description, document type, state, and date. It also names the sibling it is not ('Głosowanie końcowe i etapy daje narzędzie proces'), so an agent can route 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?

It gives concrete when-to-use guidance tied to question types ('Pytasz o ustawę? Dodaj rodzajDokumentu=...', 'tego wymagają pytania „ile ustaw…”') and routes voting/stage questions to the sibling 'proces'. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions (e.g. versus szukaj_projektow or szukaj_drukow), so it stops short of a 5.

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