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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing free-mode limitations (sections outside cache return 'missing' with AUTH_REQUIRED), per-section Pro-mode costs, default included sections, and the 'available' map listing additional queryable data. These are critical operational details not covered by 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?

The description is dense and lengthy, repeating the full section list twice and embedding cost details in a long paragraph. It is not front-loaded: the primary purpose is stated only after free-mode edge cases. Bullet points or tighter grouping would improve scanability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description is thorough: it covers usage prerequisites, mode differences, section defaults, cost model, identifier types, and a sample call. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed further; nothing crucial is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; however, the description adds meaningful context by noting that 'id' can also be a person ID ('p-…') and provides a concrete example. It also repeats default include behavior already in the schema, but the extra person-ID and example justify a 4.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns a company profile plus selected sections via 'include'. Distinguishes from siblings by naming search_companies when no identifier exists and acknowledging person IDs ('p-…') that route to get_person.

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 to use this tool when you have KRS, NIP, REGON, or a firm website address, and to call search_companies first when you only have a name. Also clarifies free vs Pro mode behavior and the purpose of 'estimate' and 'fresh'.

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