Pobierz szczegóły umowy z Centralnego Rejestru Umów

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds critical behavioral details: requires a configured CRU_API_KEY, warns that the query path is an unverified assumption, and specifies the return format options (markdown or json).

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 concise, starting with the main action, then requirements, a warning, args, and returns. Every sentence provides value, though the structure could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the required API key, the return content (pages, subject, value, etc.), and its relationship to the sibling tool. No gaps remain.

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%. The description adds context: contract_id is expected to come from search, response_format has a default of 'markdown' and can be 'json'. This is incremental value over the schema.

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 that the tool retrieves full details of a single contract from the Central Contract Register by its identifier. It distinguishes from the sibling tool rejestr_umow_search_contracts, which returns a list of contracts.

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 implies usage after obtaining a contract ID from rejestr_umow_search_contracts, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the usage scenario is well-defined.

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