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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context: the data source (official MFiPR lists) and the nature of returns (EU co-financing, programme, dates). It does not mention pagination or result limits, but for a read-only lookup the added context is solid.

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?

Front-loaded and dense: purpose, source, key, and exclusions all appear immediately. There is mild redundancy between 'Keyed by NIP' and 'Identify company by name, KRS, or NIP,' but every clause carries routing or scoping value.

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 does some work describing returned content (co-financing, programme, dates). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage of inputs, an agent has enough to invoke correctly. A note on result volume or an identifier requirement would round it out.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly further by stating the lookup is 'Keyed by NIP' and that name/KRS are alternatives, implying NIP is the preferred identifier — prioritization not expressed in the schema. This adds useful meaning beyond the per-parameter descriptions.

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') and resource ('European Funds projects for a company'), names the official source (MFiPR lists), and explicitly carves out the domain against siblings: 'not TED procurement, not FTS Commission grants, and not SUDOP state aid.' An agent can distinguish this from get_company_eu_tenders, get_company_public_aid, and others without opening a 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?

Clearly frames when to use it (Polish cohesion/shared-management EU funds) and, more importantly, when not to — the three exclusions map onto sibling tools covering tenders, Commission grants, and state aid. This is exactly the routing information an agent needs to pick among the eight siblings.

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