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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the data source (RAR), the return shape ('doc metadata + full extracted text'), and the KRS-only limitation. It does not mention auth or rate limits, keeping it from 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?

Purpose and source are front-loaded, and the clause enumeration earns its length by acting as query-matching triggers. The sentence is long but not padded with redundant restatement.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the return value (metadata + extracted text). Combined with usage triggers and scope limits, it is nearly complete, missing only minor details like failure modes when no document exists.

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 four parameters (krs, nip, name, doc_id) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the implicit 'KRS companies only' scope, not per-parameter syntax or fallback logic, 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 (Get) and resource (full text of articles of association / statute), names the source system (RAR), and includes the Polish legal terms (umowa spółki / statut). This is clearly distinguishable from all the get_company_* siblings that fetch other registries.

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?

Explicitly lists concrete trigger scenarios (share transfer consent, preemption rights, non-compete, company duration, voting rights, special share classes, representation rules) that map directly to user questions, plus a hard scope constraint ('KRS companies only'). The when-to-use condition is spelled out rather than implied.

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