filter_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 100-record input limit, the behavior on exceeding that limit (error, not partial results), and the implication for filtering semantics. It also notes that results are stored as a new set for further filtering. This goes beyond a simple description, though it doesn't mention all potential side effects or output details.

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 well-structured with concise paragraphs and examples. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage guidance and examples. Each section earns its place; the 'Kiedy użyć' sections and examples are particularly useful. Not a 5 because it could be slightly tightened, but it's efficient and well-organized.

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?

Complex tool with 13 parameters and an output schema. The description covers when to use, the prerequisite, behavior on limit, and provides numerous examples covering patterns, type filtering, dates, and sorting. Since an output schema exists, return values are not described, but the description is complete for calling the tool correctly. This likely ranks in Tier A for its thoroughness.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds value by providing parameter usage examples (several rich combinations) and explaining the input limit. However, most parameter info is already in the schema, so the description adds marginal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the examples and limit info nudge it slightly positive but not to 4.

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 filters and narrows results from earlier legal act searches, acting as a grep/filter on results from search_legal_acts, browse_acts, or track_legal_changes. It distinguishes itself by explicitly naming the sibling tools and explaining it operates on previously returned result sets, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 'Kiedy użyć' (when to use) and 'Kiedy NIE używać' (when not to use) sections, stating to use after search_legal_acts/browse_acts/track_legal_changes and not when needing new results. It also explains the required result_set_id prerequisite, giving thorough usage guidance. However, it doesn't mention other filtering alternatives like list_result_sets, but that's a minor omission given the core alternatives are covered.

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