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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral detail — that the lookup key may be an id or a slug — but says nothing about lookup failure behavior (not-found response) or what the returned profile includes, which matters for an open-world read.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient but so terse that the brevity costs clarity rather than serving it.

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 lookup tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should at minimum resolve the id-vs-slug ambiguity and hint at the returned profile shape. Safety hints are already covered by annotations, but the identifier semantics — the main thing an agent can get wrong here — remain unresolved.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description carries the burden. It only vaguely gestures at "id lub slug" while the schema exposes exactly one field named `id` (string, required) — there is no `slug` property, and the description does not clarify whether a slug is passed through `id` or how the two forms differ.

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?

"Profil komornika" names a specific resource (bailiff/enforcement-officer profile) with an implicit retrieval verb, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_sad, get_sedzia, or get_syndyk. It stops short of 5 because it never states what the profile contains or how it differs from those closely related judicial-actor tools.

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 condition for when to call this versus search tools or the other actor-lookup siblings (get_sedzia, get_prokurator, get_syndyk). It only implies usage through the lookup phrasing, with no exclusions or prerequisites.

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