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 genuinely useful context beyond that: the underlying data provenance (EU Financial Transparency System) and the scope limitation ('awarded directly', Polish companies only). It still says nothing about data freshness or result completeness.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is fetched and scoped to the data source. The closing sentence blends identification guidance into the description rather than the schema but is not wasteful. No padding or repetition.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description covers the query side adequately but says nothing about what a grant record contains (amount, year, programme, awardee role) or result volume/pagination. An agent can call it correctly, but cannot anticipate the shape or limits of the response.

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% and each parameter already documents its meaning and format (10 digits, 10-digit NIP, fallback for name). The description restates the three identifiers and adds the priority ordering (KRS/NIP preferred, name when unknown is only in the schema), which is minor added value over structured data. 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 European Commission grants awarded directly to a Polish company') and names the data source (EU Financial Transparency System) plus covered programmes (Horizon Europe, LIFE, Erasmus+). This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like get_company_eu_tenders and get_company_public_aid, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_company_eu_funds.

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 explains how to identify the company (name, KRS, NIP) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_company_eu_funds, get_company_eu_tenders, or get_company_public_aid. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided despite many closely related siblings.

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