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, what happens for an unknown id/slug, or whether the lookup is exact. For an open-world lookup tool, that is a real gap.

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 with no filler, appropriately sized for a simple lookup. It is not front-loaded with anything beyond the resource name, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with annotations covering safety and no output schema, this is roughly minimum viable. An agent can call it, but it cannot predict response contents or error behavior for a bad identifier.

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 'id' property is an undescribed string, so the description must compensate. It does partly by revealing that the value may be either an id or a slug, but it does not give format examples or say which form is preferred, and the schema still calls the field 'id' only.

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 (retrieve profile) and resource (sędzia/asesor) plus two accepted identifier forms, which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_posel, get_sad or get_komornik that cover other entities. It is clear, but written in Polish with no explicit sibling differentiation.

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 versus search_poslowie, search_sadow or ranking_sadow, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The intended use (fetch one judge's detail record) is only implied by the entity name.

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