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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain routing context (which register applies to which entity type) but says nothing about the nature or completeness of the returned proceedings data.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource, then the key-selection rule. Telegraphic but every clause carries information; no 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does not describe the proceedings records at all. For a zero-required-param lookup tool with three aliasing keys, the routing guidance is adequate but the return-value side is missing.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic mapping beyond the schema: krs for registered companies, nip for CEIDG/sole proprietors, and name as the fallback. That clarifies when each key applies rather than just restating the field names.

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?

Names a specific resource (KRZ insolvency / restructuring proceedings) retrieved via a clear verb. It does not contrast itself against the many sibling get_company_* tools (e.g. get_company_sanctions, get_company_court_gazette), so sibling differentiation is weak, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 implies usage through the KRS vs NIP vs name routing ('KRS companies via company_krz; sole proprietors via CEIDG KRZ by NIP'), which helps the agent pick a lookup key. However, it names no alternative sibling tool and gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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