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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety. The description adds genuinely new behavior: result shape (one row per scope from company_financial_rankings) and a non-obvious key convention (historical PKD versions prefixed 'v2007:', 'v2004:', 'v1997:', no prefix = PKD 2025), which an agent could not infer elsewhere. Pagination and identity-resolution behavior when multiple of krs/nip/name are supplied remain undisclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the return shape, then the PKD versioning caveat, then usage examples — a sensible order with little waste. The version-prefix sentence is dense but earns its place because the convention is otherwise unknowable.

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 carries return-value burden and does so by describing row-per-scope structure and key prefixes. It stops short of naming the actual row fields (rank value, revenue basis) and whether ranks are limited to top-N, which an agent answering ranking questions would want.

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 the scope_type enum already documents 'Omit to get all scopes', so the baseline is 3. The description grounds what the scope values mean in the output (one row per pkd_full/pkd_division/pkd_section/region/country) but adds no syntax or format detail for krs, nip, or name beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb (get) + resource (company revenue rank positions) with explicit scope: industry (PKD), region (voivodeship), and country. It clearly separates this from sibling tools like get_financials or get_financial_stats, which return financial figures rather than rank positions.

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?

Ends with concrete routing examples: "where does company X rank in Poland / its industry / its region?" which tells an agent exactly the question shape this answers. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it.

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