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 content-level context (contractor awards, buyer notices, award values) but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or how the 'Keyed by NIP' resolution behaves when only a name is supplied.

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, no filler, with the data scope front-loaded ahead of the identification note. 'Keyed by NIP' is slightly terse and could confuse an agent given that name and KRS are also accepted identifiers.

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 tool with no output schema, the description usefully sketches what comes back (awards, notices, values). The notable gap is that zero parameters are required, yet the description never states that at least one identifier must be supplied, leaving an agent guessing about the no-argument case.

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 already documented, including that name is the fallback. The description simply restates the same three identifiers without adding format, precedence, or required-count guidance, so it lands at the baseline for a fully covered schema.

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 a well-scoped resource (BZP public procurement data), and details the two data shapes returned ('full awards as contractor and notices as buyer, with award values'). The 'BZP' qualifier implicitly separates it from EU-oriented siblings, but the description never names get_company_eu_tenders, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 by the data scope (Polish public procurement), and 'Identify company by name, KRS, or NIP' hints at the identification workflow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no crossover guidance versus get_company_eu_tenders, which overlaps in the tenders domain.

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