luceed_cjenik_partner

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read/lookup operation but never states it is read-only, whether pagination affects result completeness (the 'page' param), what a 'getdiff' returns or against what baseline, or any auth requirement.

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 compact fragments, front-loaded with the resource identity before the action list. It is efficient, though the action list is redundant with the schema and costs space without adding value.

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 7-parameter, multi-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not map the actions to their required parameters, explain the 'tip'/'modified' semantics, or describe what 'getdiff' produces. An agent can guess a call shape but not call it confidently.

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% (7 params, all documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about which parameters pair with which action (e.g. uid for the uid action vs sifra for the sifra action) and merely echoes the enum values already in 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 names the resource ('Partner price lists and diffs') and the three action modes, so an agent can tell it is about partner-specific pricing. However it never differentiates itself from the obvious siblings luceed_cjenik and luceed_cijene, leaving the agent to guess which pricing tool applies. The purpose is decipherable but not sharply drawn.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: it does not say when to prefer sifra over uid, what getdiff is for, or how this differs from the general cjenik/cijene siblings. The action list simply restates the schema enum, so the agent gets no routing information.

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