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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds useful behavioral context: only evidence-backed dimensions are included (max six), liquidity is shown separately and not scored, and detailed dimensions/justification require PRO. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clearer picture of what the result will contain.

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 two sentences in Polish and conveys the core purpose, score range, PRO gating, and the evidence/liquidity rules without excess. It is front-loaded with the main action. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the scoring rules), but it is efficient and 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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is scored, the range, PRO limitations, and the scoring criteria. It does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., just a number or an object with dimensions), but the PRO note implies a richer structure for premium users. This is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the annotation coverage.

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%, with both 'symbol' and 'days' well-described (symbol aliases, days lookback range/default). The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, so it does not enhance the schema. Since the schema already carries the full parameter meaning, a 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 states it evaluates a GPW company and returns a score from 0-100, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It also notes that dimensions and justification are PRO-gated, adding specificity. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_company_analysis or get_stock_rankings, which also deal with stock evaluation, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions or exclusions, and it does not reference any sibling tool. The only contextual clue is that it is for GPW companies, but that is too vague to steer an agent toward or away from this tool among the many get_* siblings.

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