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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the notion of a 'full case list' but nothing beyond that—no pagination, rate limits, or completeness caveats—so it earns only modest credit over the annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence plus a short clause; the resource and lookup keys are front-loaded and nothing is padding. Slightly compressed by the em-dash list, but efficient overall.

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 enumerates the returned fields (amounts, grantor, measure, purpose) and identifies accepted lookup keys, covering the essentials for a read-only retrieval tool. It omits edge cases like empty results or identifier-precedence behavior, keeping it just short of complete.

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% and all three parameters are self-documented, so the schema carries the load. The description recaps 'Identify company by name, KRS, or NIP' and adds the NIP preference note, but goes no further than the schema already does—baseline 3 applies.

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: getting SUDOP public aid/grants for a company, and scopes what is returned (full case list with amounts, grantor, measure, purpose). The 'SUDOP' qualifier helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_company_eu_funds or get_company_procurement, though it never explicitly names an alternative to differentiate against.

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?

Provides lookup-key guidance ('Keyed by NIP', identify by name, KRS, or NIP), which implies usage, but offers no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not or which sibling to prefer for adjacent funding data. An agent gets context for invoking it but not for choosing it over neighbors.

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