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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the safety bar is pre-cleared. The description still adds meaningful context beyond that: a data-freshness scope ('period ending 2025+') and return behavior ('null when nothing is disclosed').

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 resource is front-loaded and the content is dense but purposeful; the parenthetical Polish terms and attribute list all carry information. It is a single long sentence that could be split for readability, but there is little waste.

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 takes on the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly: it lists the returned fields (creditor, amount, secured debt, asset, KW numbers) and the null-case behavior. Nothing needed to interpret the call result is missing.

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 restates that the record is keyed by KRS but adds no syntax, format, or precedence guidance for choosing among krs/nip/name, matching the baseline 3.

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 and resource and enumerates the returned liability subtypes (mortgages, pledges, transfers, assignments) with their attributes, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling get_company_debt_registry, leaving potential ambiguity unaddressed.

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 only implied: 'Keyed by KRS' signals the lookup path, and 'null when nothing is disclosed' hints at edge-case handling. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no routing to an alternative tool.

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