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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the server rejects PESEL and offers a fallback computation path. However, it does not disclose the return format, error behavior for an invalid NIP, or whether generation involves an external call/side effects. Notably, the PESEL rejection is already stated in the schema, so the description's unique contribution is the fallback algorithm and external alternative.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then constraint, then fallback. The technical formula could seem dense, but every element — the PESEL rejection, the exact algorithm, and the browser-based alternative — earns its place by informing agent behavior. No filler or redundancy with the schema.

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 single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, input format, the rejection edge case, and a fallback. The one genuine gap is the response shape — what the generated micro-account looks like when returned — which matters more because there is no output schema and no annotations to convey the result type.

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 100% — identyfikator is fully documented as a 10-digit NIP with the PESEL exclusion. On top of that baseline of 3, the description adds genuinely actionable parameter guidance: the exact BBAN/IBAN construction ('101000712221' + PESEL + '0' with mod-97 check digits) for when the agent encounters a PESEL. This gives the agent a concrete decision path beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+input: 'Generate the individual tax micro-account (for PIT/CIT/VAT payments) from a NIP.' This is precise and clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which perform checks (sprawdz_nip, sprawdz_vies), calculations (oblicz_odsetki), or observation/webhook management — none generate micro-accounts. An agent can immediately tell what this tool is for.

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 description gives clear context on when the tool applies: it accepts NIP and explicitly rejects PESEL. For the PESEL case it provides an actionable when-not path — compute the IBAN locally with the given formula or use skanfirmy.pl. This effectively routes the agent, though it stops short of naming sibling-tool alternatives since none compete for this job.

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