search_legal_acts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses important search semantics: keywords use AND logic, OR requires separate searches, and filter_results can be used to further narrow results. It does not explicitly state defaults like publisher=DU or limit=20, but those are already in the input schema; the description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 into a main purpose, an AND-logic warning, explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, a follow-up filter_results pointer, and examples. Every section earns its place, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded. Despite covering many behaviors, it remains compact and scannable.

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 tool has 13 parameters and 12 siblings, but the description plus full schema coverage and output schema provide enough context for correct invocation. It explains the primary use case, the main alternative, the follow-up tool, and the critical AND/OR semantics, while examples illustrate realistic parameter combinations. Nothing essential for selecting or calling this tool is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description does not need to re-explain parameters. It earns a 4 by adding illustrative multi-parameter examples that clarify intent, such as date_from/date_to for entry into force and pub_date_from/pub_date_to for publication dates. The examples map naturally to the schema properties and show how parameters combine.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Wyszukaj polskie akty prawne z Dziennika Ustaw (DU) i Monitora Polskiego (MP).' It clearly distinguishes itself from browse_acts by stating that browsing whole annual volumes is a different operation, and it routes post-search narrowing to filter_results. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from closely related 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('Gdy znasz słowa kluczowe, tytuł, typ lub kryteria wyszukiwania'), when not to use it ('Gdy chcesz przeglądać cały rocznik → użyj browse_acts'), and how to chain it with filter_results afterward. It also provides six concrete examples covering keyword, type, force, publisher, date, and title searches, which leaves little to inference.

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