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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds nothing beyond them — no note on result ordering, whether q matches names only, or what happens with an empty query. For a search tool with zero required parameters, the behavior of an unfiltered call is left entirely unstated.

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?

The two short sentences are front-loaded and waste no words, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance — the filter list consumes the space that should have explained the filters.

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?

With six undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotation detail beyond safety hints, an agent cannot reliably construct a meaningful query — particularly for role_type and neo_krs. The definition is substantially under-specified for the tool's surface area.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only repeats the parameter names back (q, role_type, voj, neo_krs, limit, offset) without explaining any of them. The meaning of 'voj' (voivodeship?), the accepted values of 'role_type', and the semantics of 'neo_krs' are all left undefined.

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 description names the resources covered (judges, prosecutors, bailiffs) which, combined with the tool name search_kasta, communicates a multi-entity search. However, it never states a verb or what 'kasta' means to a non-Polish reader, and the entity list alone does not clearly separate it from siblings like get_sedzia and get_prokurator.

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 search versus the single-entity getters (get_sedzia, get_prokurator, get_komornik) or other search_* tools. The reader must infer that this is the cross-role search path from the entity list alone.

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