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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the Pro-mode cost is 0 operations because only KRS search and the database are queried, no paid sources. It does not describe result ordering or page-size behavior, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the routing rule, then cost, then an example — a sensible order with little waste. The returned-field enumeration is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is compressed into one 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 search tool with a full 4-parameter schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, nothing an agent needs is missing: match keys, sibling routing, cost, and a usage example are all present. Pagination and limits are fully specified in the schema.

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 earns the extra point by giving a concrete example combining 'query' and 'city' and by stating that city narrows a name search, which the schema only implies. Numeric-format tolerance and limits are left to the schema, which already documents them.

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 ('Zwraca listę firm z KRS') and enumerates the match keys (nazwa, NIP, KRS, REGON) plus the returned fields. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_company, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives both directions: use this when you have no company identifier or want to narrow a name to a city, and call get_company directly when you already have KRS or NIP. That is an explicit when/when-not with a named alternative.

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