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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds real behavioral context: cost of 0 operations in Pro mode, the fact that homonyms are disambiguated by company-link count, and the hard limits on searchable fields. It does not discuss result ordering or how paging interacts with large homonym sets, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

A single tight paragraph that front-loads what is returned before the usage routing and constraints. Every sentence carries information, though the list of returned fields is somewhat dense and partially redundant with the output schema.

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 three-parameter read-only search with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: input shape, the downstream tool to call with the returned id, disambiguation of same-name people, unsupported search keys, and cost. No behavioral question is left open.

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 100%, so page, limit and query are already documented; the description adds the query shape via a concrete example ({"query": "Jan Kowalski"}) and reinforces that the input is a full first+last name. Page and limit semantics are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource (returns a list of persons from KRS matching a first and last name) and enumerates the returned fields (id, names, surname, company-link count, page URL). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_person, which is the profile-detail counterpart.

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 states the exact trigger condition ("Użyj, gdy masz imię i nazwisko, a potrzebujesz identyfikatora osoby do get_person") and routes the agent onward to get_person for profiles. It also declares explicit exclusions: no search by PESEL or date of birth, so the agent knows when this tool will not work.

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