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 by structured data. The description adds that the data comes from the Polish KRZ register, but says nothing about result completeness (e.g., empty result meaning 'no proceedings'), rate limits, or whether identifiers can be combined. A 3 is appropriate given annotations carry most of the burden.

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 tightly written sentences: the first front-loads what is retrieved and from where, the second covers identification. Nothing is wasted and the key information comes first.

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 simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, source, and identification adequately. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying that zero results mean no recorded proceedings, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 parameter is already documented, including the fallback nature of 'name'. The description's mention of the three identifiers is redundant with the schema and adds no format, precedence, or combination guidance beyond it. 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?

The description gives a precise verb (get), resource (insolvency and restructuring proceedings), and names the specific source (National Debtors Register / KRZ). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_company_sanctions, get_company_court_gazette, and get_company_financial_supervision, which cover different registers.

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 how to identify the company (name, KRS, or NIP), which implies usage but never says when to reach for this tool versus the other get_company_* siblings or what to do when no identifier is available. There are no explicit when/when-not conditions or named alternatives.

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