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 nothing beyond that (no note on what the profile contains, error behavior for unknown ids, or the slug discrepancy). Worse, it advertises a slug lookup that the schema does not permit, which can mislead an agent.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and lookup key; no wasted words. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but that is captured under other dimensions rather than length.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should indicate what a 'profile' returns, yet it says nothing about fields or response shape. Combined with the unsupported 'slug' option and no guidance on failure handling, an agent lacks what it needs to call this with confidence.

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% and the single parameter 'id' is undocumented in the schema. The description claims 'id or slug' support, but the schema has only 'id' with additionalProperties=false, so the stated alternative is not actually callable — a misleading rather than helpful parameter hint.

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?

Names the resource (prosecutor profile) and the lookup key (id/slug), so an agent knows this is a single-record fetch. It does not distinguish itself from similarly shaped siblings like get_sedzia, get_posel, or get_komornik, leaving the agent to infer the resource type from the tool name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as searching prosecutors. Usage is only implied by the Polish noun 'prokurator'.

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