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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait absent from the schema: the cost model ("1 point per returned record"), which helps an agent size max_items. It says nothing about pagination limits, auth, or result ordering, leaving the bulk of behavioral context uncovered.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the cost note appended where it belongs. The only waste is the dangling field list, which reads like a fragment and slightly obscures whether it describes inputs or outputs.

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 simple 3-parameter search with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials plus the point cost. It still leaves the return shape only implied by a terse field list and says nothing about how results are ordered or paged, so an agent has gaps to fill.

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 keyword, max_items, and start_page are already documented in the schema. The description adds the example-style notion of searching "by company name" but gives no extra syntax, matching rules, or guidance on paginating via start_page. Baseline 3 applies.

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: searching the Polish company registry (KRS) by company name. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling run_pl_companies (registry lookup) or run_pl_company_filings, so an agent must guess which of the three Poland tools fits. The trailing field list ("name, KRS number, city, register and flags") is ambiguous as to whether those are search inputs or returned fields.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. With run_pl_companies and run_pl_company_filings sitting right next to it, the description gives the agent nothing to decide between a search, a single-company lookup, and a filings query.

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