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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable return semantics: it returns sanctions measures and legal grounds when listed, and null when not listed, plus the identifier matching options. This goes beyond the structured 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?

The description is four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose then return behavior, matching keys, and sibling relationship. Every sentence adds relevant information without padding.

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 fully explains the return shape (measures and legal grounds, or null). It also covers matching identifiers and the relationship to get_company, while annotations cover safety. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool 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%, so all three parameters (krs, nip, name) are already documented in the schema. The description adds that matching can use KRS, NIP, or REGON, but omits the name fallback that the schema provides. This is useful but marginal over 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: retrieving the official MSWiA sanctions listing for one company. It also explains the return behavior (measures/legal grounds or null) and clarifies the relationship to get_company, so an agent can distinguish this from sibling tools.

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 gives clear context that this is a single-company sanctions lookup and notes that the same payload is included on get_company as sanctions, which helps the agent avoid redundant calls. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this standalone tool over get_company or 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.