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

The readOnlyHint annotation is present, so safety is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of sorting, pagination, or what 'top' means. Since annotations carry the safety profile, the description contributes little extra.

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 one concise sentence with no fluff. It delivers the core purpose clearly and efficiently, though it lacks any structural detail such as examples or additional clarification.

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?

With no output schema, the agent is left without knowing what fields or structure the results will have. The description also omits context on what makes these companies 'top opportunities' or how they are ranked, making the tool under-documented for a listing operation.

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 describes the only parameter ('limit') fully, including default and maximum. The description adds no extra meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for a single, well-documented parameter.

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 states a specific resource: a list of companies outside the portfolio, and identifies it as the same as the desktop widget's 'Top okazje' section. This is clear and not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling opportunity tools like find_opportunities or get_opportunities.

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 the many other opportunity-related siblings. The reference to the desktop widget implies it is the canonical list, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it or alternatives.

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