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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description's help. The description adds useful content-level context by enumerating the notice types surfaced (creditor calls, liquidation, mergers/transformations), but says nothing about coverage, freshness, or what an empty result means.

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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the resource and its contents, the second covers identification. The most important information (what the tool returns) is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter, read-only lookup with all three params documented and a full safety annotation set, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. With no output schema, the agent still lacks any sense of result shape or whether results can be multiple/paginated, which keeps this short of a 5.

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% and all three identifiers (KRS, NIP, name) are documented per-parameter, including the '10 digits' formats and when to fall back to name. The description's sentence about identifying the company adds no syntax or precedence detail beyond what the schema already states, so 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 ('Get'), a precise resource ('notices about a Polish company published in the Court and Commercial Gazette') and enumerates the notice categories returned (calls to creditors, liquidation, mergers and transformations). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_company_debt_registry or get_company_beneficiaries, which cover different data domains.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative or complementary sibling tool. The only directive ('Identify the company by name, KRS number or NIP') is identifier selection, not usage guidance, and it largely restates the input schema.

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