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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as response format or pagination, but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that identifies the tool and densely lists its coverage areas. Every phrase contributes value; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only info tool with one optional enum parameter, the description adequately conveys the scope. However, it does not clarify the output format or how to differentiate from the overlapping get_faq sibling, leaving some contextual ambiguity for agents.

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%, and the single optional 'topic' parameter has a descriptive enum with per-value explanations. The description reiterates those topics in prose but does not add new syntactic or semantic details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('KSeF 2.0 info') and enumerates specific content areas: integration, supported invoice types, FA(3) validator, KSeF Client features, and FAQ. It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from generic info tools, but it does not explicitly separate itself from the overlapping sibling get_faq.

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?

Usage is implied by the listed topics, suggesting agents should call this when KSeF integration information is requested. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the description does not mention alternatives like get_faq or search_knowledge_base, despite clear overlap with get_faq's FAQ scope.

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