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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description earns credit by disclosing the return shape: display names, role labels, and relationship type vocabulary (management, supervisory, ownership, procuration). It omits any note on result cardinality or pagination.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the identifier options. No filler, no restatement of the title, and every clause carries information.

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?

For a read-only lookup with four optional params and no output schema, the description supplies the return vocabulary an agent needs. The remaining gap is behavioral ambiguity around zero required parameters — whether any single identifier suffices and what happens when several are given is left unstated.

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 each parameter is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the identity options and repeats the same relationship filter values as the schema (including re-explaining 'supervisory') without adding new semantics such as precedence when multiple identifiers are supplied.

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 and resource ('Get people associated with a company') and enumerates the sub-populations returned (management board, supervisory board, shareholders, proxies), which meaningfully separates it from neighbors like get_company_beneficiaries and get_company_court_gazette. It never explicitly names an alternative or says 'not this one', so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 second sentence gives identification guidance (name, KRS, or NIP), which implies how to call it, but there is no when-to-use statement, no condition excluding it in favor of a sibling, and no note on whether an identifier is mandatory (all 4 params are optional). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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