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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: opted-out people return a GONE error, Pro-mode section costs, free-mode AUTH_REQUIRED/'missing' behavior, default sections when 'include' is omitted, and the presence of an 'available' map. These are concrete operational traits not covered by readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage, error behavior, cost model, and an example. It is dense and mostly earns its length, but the repeated section/default enumeration and cost detail make it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 complex read tool with five parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the key gaps: identifier sources, default section behavior, error cases, and cost semantics. An agent has enough context to call it correctly without additional documentation.

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. The description still adds value by explaining the default 'include' set, listing selectable sections, describing per-section cost behavior, and giving a concrete example, though it does not add much for 'fresh', 'id_type', or 'estimate' beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Zwraca profil osoby z KRS', and explains that it returns selected sections plus an 'available' map in one call. It also distinguishes the tool from search_persons by requiring a person identifier rather than a name.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it: when you have a 'p-…' identifier from search_persons, get_company, or an /osoba/ page. It also names the alternative path: 'gdy masz tylko imię i nazwisko, najpierw search_persons'.

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