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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond that: data sources, top-20-per-role cardinality, totals, currency values, and null behavior when no procurement exists. It does not cover authentication or rate limits, but those are less central for this read-only lookup.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the core resource and data sources. The remaining details about roles, fields, limits, and null results are relevant, though the sentence is densely packed.

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 supplies a good summary of return contents including counterparty roles, fields, top-20 limits, totals, and null handling. It is slightly incomplete on identifier precedence and does not explicitly position the tool against closely related procurement sibling tools.

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 input schema already documents krs, nip, and name. The description adds that results are keyed by NIP/KRS, but it does not clarify the fallback behavior for the name parameter or parameter precedence beyond what the schema states.

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?

The description clearly states the specific resource: public procurement counterparties, broken into buyers, contractors, and consortium partners from BZP, TED, and CRU. It distinguishes the concept of counterparties from raw contracts or tenders, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools such as get_company_procurement or get_company_public_contracts.

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 description explains what the tool returns but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_company_procurement or get_company_public_tenders. It also does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions for choosing between identifier parameters.

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