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 meaningful operational context beyond annotations: quotes delayed ~15 minutes, values in PLN, and scope limited to a snapshot plus a few recent daily bars rather than full OHLCV history. No auth or rate-limit detail, but the data-freshness disclosure is valuable.

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 purpose, then a dense but purposeful field list, followed by critical caveats (delay, currency, scope). Two sentences, no filler, every clause informs the call.

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 the full burden of describing return content, and it does so thoroughly: field list, quote delay, currency, and scope limits. Nothing essential for calling or interpreting this tool 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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds real value by clarifying that the tool is keyed by NIP and that a company can be identified by name, KRS, or NIP, resolving which identifier the agent should prefer.

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 ('Get Warsaw Stock Exchange listing for a company') and enumerates the exact data returned, so the agent knows this is GPW stock/financial-market data. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_financials or get_company, which could overlap on financials, so it stops short of a 5.

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 identification guidance ('Identify company by name, KRS, or NIP') and notes it is keyed by NIP, which implies usage context. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no routing against siblings such as get_financials or get_financial_stats.

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