search

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context by explaining that the default path uses a 'szybki indeks' of official metadata while searchInContent=true invokes the live full-text IPO form, implying different backends and performance profiles. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. The second sentence efficiently explains the key behavioral switch. Every clause contributes to understanding how the tool behaves.

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 tool with 9 parameters, two operational modes, and no output schema, the description is serviceable but leaves gaps: it does not describe return values, result shape, or pagination behavior, and it does not point to sibling tools for specialized lookups. The schema and annotations compensate for many gaps, but the overall description is not fully complete for safe autonomous selection.

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 high (78%) and the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics by enumerating the metadata fields searched by default (sygnatura, rodzaj, data, 'Dotyczy') and clarifying that searchInContent changes the search backend, which helps agents understand query and searchInContent behavior beyond raw parameter names.

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 the action and resource ('Wyszukuje orzeczenia TK') and distinguishes two search modes: default metadata index and full-text via searchInContent=true. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_by_signature, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives practical guidance on when to use the default metadata index versus the full-text IPO form, and the schema notes the portal can be slow. However, it provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as search_by_signature or list_recent, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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