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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: all names are returned, PESEL is never exposed (birth_year only), and JDG entities are out of scope — meaningful output and privacy characteristics.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence carries distinct payload: scope, output content, and the JDG exclusion.

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 usefully sketches the return shape (all names, birth_year, no PESEL) and states the domain exclusion. For a safe read tool with full annotations and 100% schema coverage, this is nearly complete; only the relationship to get_company_people remains 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 all three parameters (krs, nip, name) are already documented in the schema, including that NIP resolves KRS. The description only reaffirms the KRS scope and adds no new syntax or fallback logic, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a precise resource ('CRBR beneficial owners'), scoped to a KRS company. An agent can distinguish it from generic siblings like get_company, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closest sibling, get_company_people, which likely overlaps in owner/person data.

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 statement 'JDG are not in CRBR' gives one useful when-not exclusion, implying the tool is inappropriate for sole proprietorships. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_company_people or which of the three identifiers to use, leaving the main routing decision to inference.

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