Projekty wniesione do Sejmu

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context: the stan field is limited to three registry values and 'aktywny' means only 'not withdrawn' (not 'in progress'), and that od/do refer to the receipt date, not the delivery date. That trap-avoidance is real value 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 but front-loads the resource definition before moving to field/date caveats. Every clause carries information (who can submit, date semantics, stan/etap disambiguation, sibling routing), though the packed semicolon style makes it slightly dense for the amount of content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be described. The description covers the notable field semantics, the receipt-vs-delivery date distinction, and where to go for crossing concerns (etap, delivery). It is essentially complete for a read-only search tool, with only minor room for stating the default kadencja behavior.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema: fraza searches in title OR description (with the note that amendment titles are identical), and it clarifies the semantic ambiguity of stan and of the od/do date range. This exceeds what the schema properties alone convey.

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 resource (rejestr projektów ustaw i uchwał wniesionych do Sejmu) and enumerates the substantive content it exposes: wnioskodawca, data wpływu, numer druku, opis, consultations. An agent can tell this apart from the print-centric siblings (szukaj_drukow) and proses-centric siblings (szukaj_procesow) 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 routes the agent for adjacent needs: etap (uchwalony/opublikowany) via the proces tool by numer druku, and date-of-delivery via szukaj_drukow. That gives clear context, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over szukaj_drukow or szukaj_procesow for the core search itself.

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