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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuinely new operational facts: it reads public registries only, requires no API key, and is subject to a daily per-IP limit. The only gap is that it doesn't say what happens on a malformed or unknown NIP — although the output schema likely covers the response shape.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by scope, safety/access constraints and the rate limit. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is filler.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering return values, the description only needed to add scope, access and coverage details — which it does. Minor omissions remain around NIP validity handling and how the optional bank-account branch affects results.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does partially compensate: it frames nip as a Polish contractor identifier and clarifies that bank_account is an optional single-account verification trigger. It never gives NIP format/length expectations (relevant given the nip_checksum sibling) or what supplying bank_account changes in the response, so the gap is only partly filled.

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 — a concise risk summary for a Polish contractor identified by NIP — and enumerates exactly what it covers (VAT status, whitelisted accounts, KRS liquidation/bankruptcy/restructuring flags). That scope is clearly distinct from siblings get_krs_extract, check_vat_whitelist and vies_check, which each cover one slice of the same domain.

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 conveys a clear use context (pre-contract risk screening) and notes the optional bank-account verification path, so an agent knows this is an aggregate check rather than a single-registry lookup. It does not explicitly say when to prefer the narrower siblings (e.g. use check_vat_whitelist for a standalone account check), leaving that to inference.

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