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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates safety, and the description adds a meaningful restriction ('Wycena modelowa jest dostępna w PRO') that informs about feature gating. Still, it says nothing about return format, pagination, or failure modes, so transparency is adequate but limited.

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 primary purpose is front-loaded. The PRO sentence is slightly promotional but still conveys a real constraint, so it earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter, the description covers the core idea, but with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the agent lacks enough detail to safely invoke it (e.g., symbol format, what the forecast includes). It is minimally complete but not robust.

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?

The schema has one 'symbol' parameter with zero description coverage, and the description only implies it is a company identifier via 'spółki'. It does not define the expected format (e.g., ticker vs. ISIN) or provide examples, leaving a key ambiguity unresolved.

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 tool provides a forecast of company results for upcoming quarters, specifying both resource ('wyników spółki') and time frame ('najbliższe kwartały'). It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like get_forecast_accuracy.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_forecast_accuracy or get_quarterly_kpis. The PRO note is a feature limitation, not a usage cue, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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