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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful substance on its own: the response is a 'full case list' with named fields, which is valuable since there is no output schema. It omits pagination or result-size behavior, keeping it out of the top band.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose and returned fields front-loaded, followed by the keying/identification note. Nothing is padded, though 'Keyed by NIP' followed immediately by 'Identify company by name, KRS, or NIP' is mildly redundant.

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 three-parameter lookup with no required fields and no output schema, the description supplies the essential shape of the result set (case list with amounts, grantor, measure, purpose) and how to identify the company. Only pagination/limits and sibling routing are 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 all three parameters (krs, nip, name) are documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the identification strategy and the 'keyed by NIP' note, which largely restates what the schema already conveys.

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 and resource ('Get SUDOP public aid / grants for a company') and enumerates the returned content (amounts, grantor, measure, purpose), so the agent knows exactly what data it gets. The 'SUDOP' and 'public aid' framing separates it from the EU-funding siblings, though it stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from get_company_eu_grants.

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?

Usage is implied — fetch Polish public aid records for one company — and the description notes that the company can be located by name, KRS, or NIP. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no pointer to a sibling such as get_company_eu_grants for EU-sourced aid.

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