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 covered. The description adds useful return context beyond annotations by naming the kinds of people records and relationship labels returned, but it does not mention pagination, result limits, or authentication constraints.

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?

The description is two tightly written sentences with zero waste, and it front-loads the core purpose before enumerating categories and identifiers. Every clause earns its place by either clarifying scope or identifying the return values.

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 read-only, closed-world lookup tool with 100% schema coverage and explicit annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains the resource, its subcategories, the return labels, and identifier options. The main minor gap is the lack of pagination or result-size expectations, but with no output schema and simple parameters, this does not leave a critical ambiguity.

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 four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates that the company can be identified by name, KRS, or NIP and names the relationship types, but it adds no syntax, format, or filtering detail beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('people associated with a company') and enumerates the relevant categories: management board, supervisory board, shareholders, proxies. It is clear about what is returned, but it does not differentiate this tool from close siblings such as get_company_beneficiaries, which likely surfaces overlapping ownership information.

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 provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. It only explains identifier choices (name, KRS, NIP), which is parameter usage rather than tool-selection guidance, so an agent receives no explicit routing advice for choosing this tool over get_company, get_company_beneficiaries, or others.

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