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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value by disclosing what the data contains — contractor-side awards and buyer-side notices with award values — which the annotations cannot convey, though it omits any note on coverage limits 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 compact sentences with no filler, leading with the resource and scope before the keying detail. The em-dash clause is dense but clear; nothing here is wasted, though phrasing is slightly compressed.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry the return-value burden, and it only partially does — it names the content categories and award values but says nothing about volume, date coverage, or result shape. With all three parameters optional, an agent also gets no guidance on which identifier to supply when several are available beyond the NIP hint already in the schema.

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 each parameter is already documented, including the schema's own note that NIP is preferred for BZP. The description's 'Keyed by NIP' and the name/KRS/NIP list restate the schema rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline of 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 ('Get'), a specific resource (BZP public procurement data), and defines scope precisely: full awards as contractor plus notices as buyer, with award values. It arguably differentiates from get_company_eu_tenders by naming BZP, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the close sibling get_company_procurement.

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?

Usage is implied by the identity-resolution sentence ('Identify company by name, KRS, or NIP'), which tells the agent how to call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing against the overlapping siblings get_company_procurement and get_company_eu_tenders.

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