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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the returned data shape (activity flags, HQ decisions with issue and validity dates) and the keying behavior. It doesn't cover failure cases or pagination, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what data comes back, the second covers identifiers. Every clause earns its place, and the returned-field list is doing the work an absent output schema cannot.

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 and 100%-covered params, the description compensates by enumerating return fields, which is the right call. It is nearly complete for a read-only registry lookup; only the no-match/empty-result behavior is left unstated.

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 each of krs, nip, and name is already documented. The description reinforces NIP as preferred for BDO and name as a fallback, adding a light preference signal but no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get BDO waste and packaging register data') and enumerates the exact payload (registration number, EUP site count, activity flags, headquarters decisions). The BDO waste/packaging registry is clearly distinct from the many other get_company_* registry siblings such as debt, court gazette, or sanctions, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

It states the lookup keys ('Keyed by NIP. Identify company by name, KRS, or NIP'), which implies usage but never says when to choose this tool over another registry lookup or what happens if no identifier matches. Context is present but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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