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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the notification channels, the exact monitored fields, the GDPR-limited behavior for natural persons, the auth mechanism (Bearer header or api_key argument), and the free-plan limit of 10 NIPs.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then progressively adds behavior, GDPR caveat, auth, and quota. Dense but each sentence conveys actionable information; the GDPR clause is slightly heavy but not 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers behavior, notifications, auth, and limits adequately. Minor gaps remain: it doesn't say what happens on duplicate observation or how the observation is later identified/removed.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description only reiterates the API key requirement rather than adding syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 + resource ('Add a NIP to monitoring') and immediately defines the scope of what monitoring means (VAT status, bank account, White List registry fields). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like unobserve_nip, list_observations, and sprawdz_nip.

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?

Explains the outcome of using it (notification via changes_since or email) and the GDPR-driven constraint for entities without a KRS number, plus the API key requirement and free-plan cap. It does not explicitly name the removal tool or state when not to use it, but the context is otherwise clear.

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