get_entity_full

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

Description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: returns history including each change, deletion, previous management boards, and larger response. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and description aligns and adds detail.

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 sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose and key differentiator. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool with good annotations and no output schema, description covers what the tool returns and when to use it. Could mention output format explicitly but not required given clarity. Slight room for improvement.

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 baseline is 3. Description does not add additional parameter insights beyond what is already in schema (krs number, rejestr with enum). No contradiction, but no extra value.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Pobiera' (retrieves) and resource 'ODPIS PELNY z KRS' with history. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it provides full history of changes, not just current state, which contrasts with likely simpler tools like get_entity and get_board.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'uzywaj kiedy potrzebujesz historii zmian, nie tylko stanu aktualnego' (use when you need history of changes, not just current state). This implies alternative for current state, providing clear context.

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