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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the retrieval source (a court register document repository), but says nothing about document availability, language, truncation, or paging. Some added context, not rich.

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 action, then usage triggers, then identification. Efficient overall, though the final identification sentence largely duplicates what the schema already states.

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 correctly notes the return is document text, and the document-repository source plus topical use cases give the agent enough to call it. Gaps remain around ambiguous name resolution and behavior when no articles exist, which matter for a tool with all-optional parameters.

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 KRS, NIP, name and doc_id are fully documented in the schema itself. The third sentence restates the identifier options (name/KRS/NIP) without adding meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the text of a Polish company's articles of association or statute') plus the source ('court register document repository'), which cleanly separates it from the other get_company_* siblings. An agent can identify the tool 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?

The second sentence gives explicit topical triggers (share transfers, pre-emption rights, voting rights, management board powers, company duration), which is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to a sibling alternative (e.g. get_company for general company data).

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