get_print

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies what the tool returns (title, dates, PDF attachments, process number) and includes an important nuance that not every print has its own legislative process. It also lists the possible error codes, which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies expected outcomes.

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 two sentences: the first concisely states the purpose and content, and the second lists the error codes. It is appropriately front-loaded with the primary function and contains no unnecessary words, fitting the 'every sentence earns its place' principle.

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 no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by listing the main fields (title, dates, attachments, process number). It also covers potential error conditions and a domain-specific caveat about prints without a process. Minor omissions like date formats or attachment specifics prevent a perfect score.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (nr and term), with 100% coverage. The description mentions 'by number' but does not add any semantic detail about the parameters beyond what the schema offers, so it does not improve on the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Szczegóły druku sejmowego po numerze' (details of a parliamentary print by number). It lists the specific pieces of information returned (title, dates, attachments, process number), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_prints (searching) and get_process (process details).

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 usage context is implied: the tool is used when you already have a print number and need its details. However, the description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives, such as search_prints when the number is unknown. It provides a useful caveat about prints that do not initiate a process, but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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