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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the data domains returned, that pending applications are included, and that the record is keyed by NIP.

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 compact sentences with the payload scope front-loaded, then the identification options. No filler or restated title noise.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so at a high level (concessions list, validity dates, pending applications, NIP keying). It stops short of describing the record shape or behavior when a company cannot be resolved, which is a small residual gap for a 3-param lookup.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the schema already documents all three identifiers. The description adds a preference signal ('NIP — preferred for URE') that the schema does not convey, nudging above baseline.

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 verb+resource (URE energy concessions for a company) and enumerates the covered domains — electricity, gas, heat, liquid fuels — plus what the payload contains (validity dates, pending applications). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as get_company_waste_registry or get_company_sanctions.

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?

States the lookup conditions explicitly: 'Identify company by name, KRS, or NIP' and flags NIP as preferred for URE. Clear context for when/how to call, though it names no alternative tool or exclusion case (no close sibling overlaps, so this is minor).

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