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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search operation and input types, but does not explain matching behavior (partial vs exact), result format, pagination, or any limits. This is a notable gap for a search tool.

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 description is a single concise sentence, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no filler or redundant detail. Every word contributes meaning.

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 simple single-parameter lookup tool, the description is adequate but minimal. There is no output schema and no annotation coverage, yet the description does not clarify what the search returns, how results are matched, or whether the query should be complete or partial. This leaves some operational ambiguity.

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%: the 'zapytanie' parameter already explains that it accepts an activity name or PKD code. The tool description merely restates this information and adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('PKD 2025 business activity codes'), and the accepted input types ('activity name or code number'). This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle NIP, REGON, VAT, and account-related lookups.

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 for when to use the tool: when the user needs to find PKD business activity codes by name or code. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool clearly overlaps with PKD code lookup, so the usage context is effectively clear.

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