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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's main addition is what the data actually contains ('full awards as contractor and notices as buyer'), which is genuinely useful scope context. It discloses nothing about permissions, coverage window, or result volume, so it stays at baseline.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. It loses a point for mild redundancy between 'Keyed by NIP' and the following identification clause, which partly restate the same identifier guidance.

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?

All three params are optional, there is no output schema, and the description never indicates what a caller receives or whether results are limited/paginated. It is adequate for a lookup tool but leaves an agent guessing about result shape in a family of eight sibling company-data tools.

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 the schema already carries parameter meaning; the baseline is 3. The description's 'Keyed by NIP' plus 'Identify company by name, KRS, or NIP' adds only a hint about precedence, and slightly muddies it by implying NIP is the key while the schema treats name as the fallback for an unknown KRS/NIP.

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 TED EU-threshold public procurement') and adds scope detail, distinguishing it from the domestic sibling get_company_public_tenders via the explicit 'EU-threshold' qualifier. It never names a sibling outright, but the distinction is inferable without opening the 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?

The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not route the agent to or away from any sibling (public_tenders, eu_funds, eu_grants). 'Identify company by name, KRS, or NIP' is parameter selection advice, not usage context.

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