kio_get_orzeczenie

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'full decision' context but does not disclose other traits like error handling, rate limits, or return format. The description is consistent with annotations, adding minimal extra value.

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 description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. It could be slightly improved by adding brief context about what a 'full decision' entails, but it is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, one parameter, and the presence of an output schema (which likely describes the return structure), the description is adequate. It states the core action clearly, so the agent can infer the rest from the schema.

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?

The tool description itself does not discuss parameters. However, the input schema's parameter description covers both string and integer types and explains the extra request needed for signatures. Since schema description coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, and the tool description adds nothing beyond that.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a full KIO decision (orzeczenie), matching the name. It distinguishes from sibling tools that search, get recent, or get PDF URLs, as it specifically retrieves the full decision by signature or ID.

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?

The main description provides no usage context or when to use this versus alternatives. However, the parameter description hints that using a signature requires an extra search step, implying a workflow. This is implicit guidance but not explicit about when-not or alternatives.

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