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

Description contradicts annotations: it says 'Zmiana' (change) implying mutation, while annotations set readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct annotation contradiction that would confuse an agent about side effects and safety.

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 short sentence, but it is both incomplete and misleading. It does not front-load the primary purpose and contains a contradictory verb, so brevity is not an asset here.

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?

A getter with 4 required parameters and no output schema demands a clear explanation of what context is returned and how parameters relate. The description provides none of that and even misleads about mutation, making it completely inadequate for an agent to call correctly.

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 all five parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond naming the resource ('macro factor for a company'), so it does not improve on 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 is vague and misleading: it says 'Zmiana' (change) but the tool name is get_factor_context, suggesting it retrieves context. It doesn't clearly state what the tool does or what the output represents, and it fails to distinguish itself from many sibling get_* tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other factor-related tools like macro_attribution or get_company_analysis. No context about intended scenarios or exclusions.

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