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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but discloses useful behavior: newest-first ordering, the fields returned (date, type, period, entry details), and a per-record credit cost. It omits auth/permission requirements and pagination behavior, but the disclosure of ordering, return shape and pricing is genuinely valuable context.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the cost note. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical document list makes it long.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the sort order. Combined with the fully documented input schema, an agent has enough to call the tool and anticipate the result, though permission and pagination semantics remain unaddressed.

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 schema already documents 'company' (KRS number or registry URL) and the pagination parameters. The description's restatement of the identifier matches the schema without adding syntax or format detail beyond it, so the 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 ('List') and resource (filed financial documents and register entries of a Poland company) and enumerates the document categories returned. An agent can distinguish this from run_pl_companies and run_pl_companies_search purely from the description.

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?

The description implies the identifier to use ('by KRS number or registry link') and the sort ordering, but never states when to prefer this tool over the sibling company-lookup tools. Usage context is inferred, not explicit, so this is minimum-viable guidance.

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