get_system_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data it returns and that results can be used for filtering, but does not mention pagination behavior, limits at the endpoint level beyond schema defaults, or any response structure beyond the existing output schema. Adequate but not rich for an unannotated tool.

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?

Compact paragraph with a clear return summary followed by five concrete examples. No filler or repetition of schema content; the examples earn their place.

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 a rich output schema already present and all 3 parameters fully documented, the description covers the key intent and usage patterns. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of when metadata-prefetching is necessary versus unnecessary, but this is a low-complexity lookup tool, so the definition is effectively 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's examples genuinely enrich 'category' by mapping each value to real content (DU, MP for publishers; Ustawa, Rozporządzenie for types), going beyond the schema text. This lifts it 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Pobierz') and resource ('metadane systemu aktów prawnych'), and enumerates exactly what it returns (keywords, publishers, document types, statuses, institutions). It is clearly distinct from document-oriented siblings like search_legal_acts or browse_acts, though it stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it is not.

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 examples with concrete category values (keywords, types, publishers, statuses, all) give an agent actionable when-to-use guidance for filtering and search. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use it, leaving some inference required.

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