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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is low. The description adds real behavioural context beyond that: it discloses scope of content and, importantly, that an inquiry does not book a date or confirm a price — a constraint that prevents the agent from over-promising. It still says nothing about the shape of the returned content.

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 sentence with no filler, where each clause maps to a distinct topic an agent might be asked about. It is list-like rather than front-loaded with a main clause, but no sentence is wasted.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool this covers what the content is about, which is the main selection question. With no output schema, however, the description never states the return form (a prose article, sectioned text, canonical Polish fact texts), so an agent cannot anticipate what it will get back.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (lang) with 100% schema description coverage, including the enum values and the rule for choosing 'pl' vs 'en'. The description only alludes to languages as a content topic, adding nothing to the schema, 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?

The tool's title and description make clear this is an informational/read tool about MERA's cooperation process, and it enumerates the specific topics returned (inquiry steps, on-site behaviour, purchase and deployment, languages, pricing policy, inquiry contents). It differentiates itself reasonably from siblings like get_company_profile and get_media_and_proof by topic. The only gap is that no explicit verb frames the content ('returns documentation covering...'), so it reads as a topic list.

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?

Usage is implied by the topic list — an agent can infer it should call this for process, pricing-policy, or inquiry-content questions — and the trailing caveat steers it away from promising bookings or prices. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no routing to alternatives such as open_inquiry_form or request_quote when the user actually wants to act.

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