Nagrania i transmisje posiedzeń

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that results include player links and clarifies the available query modes, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering beyond what the schema implies.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the resource and enumerate the query modes efficiently. Nothing feels padded, though the enumeration reads as a list rather than a prioritized summary.

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 9 optional parameters all documented, a full output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description needs only to orient the caller, which it does. Minor gaps remain around sibling differentiation and pagination, but the tool is callable as described.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (including data, od/do, komisja, fraza, dzis) is fully documented in the schema. The description names the same query axes (single day, range, committee code, title word, today) but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource (recordings and broadcasts of Sejm sessions, committees, and events) with the concrete payoff of player links, which distinguishes it from session/general tools. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like lista_posiedzen or posiedzenia_komisji, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implicitly tells the agent which query modes are available (single day, date range, committee code, title word, today's broadcasts), which is useful. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives and no exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the choice among overlapping sibling tools.

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