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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that matching is by KRS/NIP and lists notice categories, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or behavior when no identifier matches.

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 tight sentences with the resource and entity scope front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries information about what is retrieved and how it is keyed.

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, so the description carried some burden to characterize the return, and it does so only at the level of notice categories. It omits return shape, ordering, and the optional name fallback behavior, leaving gaps for a lookup tool with three optional identifiers.

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% and the three parameters are self-documenting; the description's mention of 'Matched by KRS or NIP' mirrors the schema rather than adding syntax, format, or precedence rules. Baseline 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 + resource ('Get Court and Commercial Gazette (MSiG) notices for one company') and scopes it to a single entity, which separates it from sibling read tools like get_company_articles or get_company_procurement. It does not, however, explicitly name or rule out those siblings.

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 gives matching keys (KRS or NIP) and enumerates the notice categories retrieved (creditor calls, dissolution, mergers, liquidation), which implies when the tool is relevant. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over sibling company-detail tools or what to do if it returns nothing.

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