browse_acts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals pagination (default 20, limit/offset), the result_set_id output mechanism, and the unique fact that limit has no upper cap (unlike other list tools). Minor gap: the description never explains what 'result_set_id' actually is, how it persists, or how it should be consumed by downstream tools.

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?

Well-structured and appropriately sized. The critical 'when to use' and 'when not to use' guidance is front-loaded, followed by compact examples. Each sentence earns its place; no filler. The Polish language is dense but organized logically.

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?

The description covers the core usage scenarios, pagination, and output (list + result_set_id). Given the output schema is absent)Skip—what could add value is explaining how result_set_id integrates with other tools and whether results persist across calls. Nonetheless, for a browse tool with 5 well-documented params)Skip, the description is largely complete.

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 schema already provides human-readable descriptions for all 5 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by exemplifying concrete values (DU, MP, years) and clarifying the default of 20 and the uncapped limit behavior—but this mostly reinforces schema info rather than adding substantial new meaning beyond examples.

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 verb ('Przeglądaj' = Browse) and clearly defines the scope: all legal acts issued by a given publisher in a given year. It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_legal_acts by stating what it is not ('Kiedy NIE używać'). This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit 'when to use' and 'when NOT to use' sections, naming the alternative tool (search_legal_acts) for keyword-based lookup. It further includes 6 concrete examples showing valid invocations with different parameter combinations, making intended usage unambiguous.

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