kodpocztowy_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description provides useful behavioral context: offline operation, bundled dataset, coverage limited to major cities, and result limits (default 20, max 50). It does not detail error handling or output format, but an output schema exists.

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 succinct sentences: first states purpose and parameter usage, second adds dataset context and constraints. No redundant words; information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, dataset limitations, and result bounds. Minor omission of behavior on no match, but overall sufficient.

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 has 0% description coverage; the description compensates by explaining 'query' as 'code prefix or place-name substring' and 'limit' with defaults and maximum, adding meaning beyond bare types.

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 specifies clear verb 'Look up' and resource 'Polish postal codes', with query methods (code prefix or place-name substring). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on layers, features, or other geocoding.

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?

Description implies usage for postal code lookup via prefix or place-name, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like geocode_* or teryt_lookup. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given.

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