Surowe zapytanie do API Sejmu

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing that the response is raw with no verdicts or counting rules, and by naming resources that do NOT exist (gender, demographics, presidium list), which prevents wasted off-target queries. It does not detail pagination/rate limits, keeping it short of 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?

The block is long, but it is front-loaded with purpose, then the fallback constraint, then supporting detail. For an open-ended path parameter, the resource enumeration genuinely earns its place, though the density makes it less immediately scannable than an ideal definition.

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 an output schema present (so return values need not be described) and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: when to use it, which paths are valid, and what it must not be used to infer. Nothing material is 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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully enriches 'sciezka' by enumerating the valid resource families (MP, clubs, committees incl. subcommittees, proceedings, votings, prints, processes, bills, videos, ELI acts/references/struct/types) rather than just the schema's single example. It adds no extra meaning for 'od' or 'parametry', so it does not reach 5.

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 verb+resource: fetching arbitrary JSON from the Sejm API tree (paths under /sejm/ or /eli/), with concrete example paths. It also explicitly positions itself against siblings via 'Używaj tylko wtedy, gdy żadne inne narzędzie nie pasuje', so an agent can tell it apart from all the purpose-built tools without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit selection rule (use only as a fallback when no other tool fits), a when-not constraint (do not compute attendance or vote results from this raw output), and even routes a specific unmet need (Sejm presidium/marshal) to the alternative szukaj_glosowan with a suggested query phrase. This is near-complete routing guidance.

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