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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: the outcome breakdown for appellant cases (upheld/dismissed/discontinued/rejected), the fields returned (case numbers, dates, other party, outcome), and the matching rule that parties are matched by name and city — a caveat that affects result accuracy. It omits pagination/result-limit behavior.

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 core purpose and scoping (institution, dispute roles, return fields) before the secondary identification/matching note. Every clause carries information — roles, outcome counts, matching caveat — with no filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned data (counts, case numbers, dates, other party, outcome) and the identification methods, and annotations cover safety. Minor gaps remain around result volume/pagination and how multiple parties are matched, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 all three parameters (krs, nip, name) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the identification options ('Identify company by name, KRS, or NIP') without adding format or precedence detail beyond what the schema provides (the schema itself notes NIP is preferred).

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 states a specific verb and resource — KIO (National Appeal Chamber) rulings in public procurement disputes — and enumerates the company's possible roles (appellant, participant, contracting authority) plus the returned outcome counts. This is highly distinctive and readable. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from procurement-adjacent siblings such as get_company_procurement, get_company_public_contracts or get_company_public_tenders, which an agent could otherwise confuse it with.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The description implies the scenario (a company involved in a KIO dispute) but never tells the agent when this tool is the right choice versus get_company_procurement or the other tender/contract siblings. Prerequisites and exclusions are absent.

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