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 statement about whether a missing court errors or returns null, and no hint about the profile's contents or size.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and the lookup key, with zero waste. It is arguably too sparse, but nothing in it is filler.

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 is the only place to learn what a court profile contains, and it says nothing. For a single-parameter read tool the bar is low, but an agent still cannot tell what fields or identifiers it will get back.

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% and the single parameter is documented only as a string. The description does add real meaning by noting the value may be an id or a slug, which the schema does not say, but it gives no format, example, or case-sensitivity detail.

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 a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (court profile) and states the lookup key. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_sedzia or ranking_sadow, so it falls short of a 5.

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 indication of when to choose this tool over ranking_sadow, search_administracja, or get_sedzia, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only guidance is the lookup key, which is more parameter detail than usage guidance.

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