check_nip_bank_account

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true), description adds error codes (invalid_nip, invalid_bank_account, etc.) and rate-limit context, plus clarifies it returns a binary TAK/NIE result.

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 sentences with no fluff; the error list is compact and the usage guidance is integrated into a single clause.

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 boolean check tool, the description covers the return nature ('TAK/NIE'), identifies the appropriate use case, lists potential errors, and leverages annotations for safety. No output schema exists, but the result type is implicit.

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% with descriptions for nip, bank_account, and date. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Szybkie sprawdzenie TAK/NIE: czy KONKRETNY rachunek bankowy jest przypisany do KONKRETNEGO NIP-u', which clearly defines the check operation and distinguishes from sibling search_bank_account by explicitly positioning it as a confirmation check.

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?

Explicitly says 'preferuj ten tool nad search_bank_account, jesli znasz OBA identyfikatory (NIP i numer konta) i chcesz tylko potwierdzenia' and mentions higher daily limit (5000 vs 100), giving clear context for selection.

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