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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: data provenance (official MFiPR lists), the fund family (cohesion/shared-management), and what fields come back. No auth, rate-limit, or pagination details, but the additions are substantive.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the keying rule, then the disambiguation. Every clause earns its place, though the exclusion list is dense in a way that slightly compresses readability.

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 previews the return content (projects, EU co-financing, programme, dates). Identification is fully addressed across all three optional params. It doesn't state there are zero required params, but for a read-only lookup tool the coverage is sufficient.

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 schema already documents all three identifiers, including noting NIP is 'preferred for FE'. The description reinforces NIP as the primary key and lists the name/KRS/NIP alternatives, but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 EU/European Funds projects for a company) and pins down the source (official MFiPR lists) and payload (EU co-financing, programme, dates). The closing exclusions ('not TED procurement, not FTS Commission grants, and not SUDOP state aid') sharply separate it from sibling tools like get_company_eu_tenders and get_company_public_aid.

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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance by naming three adjacent data domains it does NOT cover, plus identification guidance ('Keyed by NIP', 'Identify company by name, KRS, or NIP'). It stops short of routing the agent to the specific sibling tool to use instead, so it's clear but not fully prescriptive.

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