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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds that results are 'keyed by NIP (VAT)' and which identifier is preferred, but says nothing about coverage limits, latency, or what a miss returns. Useful context, but not rich.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: what it returns, how to key it, and what it is not. No filler, and the exclusion is placed last where it belongs.

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?

A read-only lookup with no required parameters and no output schema, so the description needn't explain return formatting. It covers scope, identifier options, and exclusions; the only missing piece is behavior when multiple or no identifiers are supplied.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including NIP being 'preferred for FTS'. The description restates the identifier options rather than adding new semantics (e.g., precedence when both KRS and NIP are supplied, or behavior when only name is given). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 European Commission FTS awards for a company') and enumerates the program families (Horizon, LIFE, Erasmus, direct/indirect-management grants), which an agent can act on. However the tool name says 'procurement' while the title/description say 'grants', and the description's cited alternative 'get_company_fe' does not appear in the sibling list, creating a small mismatch that undercuts precise 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?

Gives explicit identification guidance ('Identify by name, KRS, or NIP') plus exclusions ('Not cohesion funds ... and not TED procurement'), which tells the agent when not to use it. The named alternatives don't line up exactly with the actual siblings (get_company_eu_funds, get_company_eu_tenders), so routing is clear in intent but not perfectly precise.

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