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 no behavioral context of its own — no mention of result ordering, pagination beyond 'limit', completeness of the registry, or response shape — which is a notable gap for an open-world query tool.

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 fragments with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded before the filter list. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely efficient, so it sits at the minimum-viable level.

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?

Five parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations carrying semantics mean the description bears the full explanatory burden — and it delivers only a name list. An agent cannot confidently build a query (e.g., date format for from/to, semantics of body) from this definition.

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 0%, so the schema itself documents nothing beyond names and types; the description merely repeats the same five names without adding meaning. It does not explain what 'body' refers to, the expected format of from/to dates, what neo_krs=true filters, or the default/meaning of limit.

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 phrase 'Nominacje sędziowskie' identifies the resource (judicial nominations) and the tool name supplies the implicit 'get' verb, so the subject is discernible. However, it gives no scope or framing (what a nomination record contains, whether it is a list) and does nothing to separate this tool from siblings like get_sedzia or ranking_sadow.

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 only guidance is a bare list of filter names. There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus get_sedzia/get_sad, no prerequisites, and no indication of behavior when no filters are supplied.

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