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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds that only a preview is returned while full content is PRO-gated, which is useful and non-contradictory. However, it does not disclose what the preview contains or whether PRO is required even to call the 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the PRO limitation is relevant, concise, and clearly stated.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it leaves ambiguity about what the returned preview will include and how this differs from many similar sibling get_* tools. No output schema exists to compensate for this vagueness.

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% and the description does not explain the symbol parameter at all. While 'symbol' is somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning about expected format, such as ticker vs ISIN, or any constraints.

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 states the resource: a preview of a company's fundamental analysis, and adds the PRO limitation. It is understandable, though it uses a noun ('Podgląd') rather than an imperative verb and does not differentiate itself from sibling analysis tools like get_company_dossier or get_drivers.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related sibling tools. The PRO note implies a preview-only use case, but that is implicit rather than actionable routing guidance.

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