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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds the scope of returned data but says nothing about ordering, multi-year result shape, or behavior when no identifier matches.

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 core scope is front-loaded and the identifier hint is appended where it belongs. The metrics list is somewhat enumeration-heavy but each named item conveys real return content.

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 no annotations explaining returns, the description's enumeration of returned columns meaningfully compensates. It is nearly complete for this tool, lacking only the multi-period result structure and behavior on ambiguous or missing identifiers.

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 five parameters are already documented, including year_from/year_to ranges. The description reinforces the identifier options (name, KRS, NIP) but adds no format detail, edge-case handling, or defaults 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full financial statement metrics per fiscal period') and names the underlying column set, which is concrete enough to distinguish this from a generic company lookup. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the sibling get_financial_stats, so an agent must infer that this returns detail rather than aggregates.

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 tells you how to identify the company (name, KRS, or NIP), which is useful invocation guidance, but never says when to prefer this tool over get_financial_stats or get_company. Usage is implied by the field list rather than stated as a condition.

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