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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds that it returns the complete column set and enumerates the major line items, which is genuine context beyond the annotations, but it is silent on behavior when no year range or identifier is supplied (all 5 params are optional) and on result volume.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then return contents, then identifier options. The middle enumeration sentence is somewhat list-heavy but each item (liabilities, equity, revenue) helps an agent judge relevance. Minimal waste overall.

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 usefully compensates by naming the returned metric families, and it lists the identifier options for a tool with five optional parameters. The main remaining gap is unspecified default behavior when year_from/year_to or all identifiers are omitted, but overall it is adequate for correct invocation.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema (KRS/NIP digits, year examples). The description's identifier sentence ('name, KRS, or NIP') restates that rather than adding new syntax, defaults, or precedence rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 even names the underlying data source ('all entity_financial_metrics columns'), which is unusually concrete. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_financial_stats, so an agent cannot fully tell the two apart without opening the schemas.

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 last sentence gives real selection guidance for identifying the company (name vs KRS vs NIP), which is useful routing information. But there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_financial_stats, get_company, or get_company_secured_liabilities, so the when-to-use context is only implied.

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