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

The description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation; it merely names the resource. It adds no context about defaulting to the latest meeting, symbol canonicalization, or returned data behavior.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundant clauses. The acronym expansion is front-loaded and easy to parse, even though the definition is thin overall.

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 and only a terse noun phrase, the agent must infer return shape and scope from the name and parameter schema. The schema compensates for parameter details, but the description still omits output format and when to prefer this over related get_* tools.

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 all three parameters documented in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 expands the WZA acronym to 'walne zgromadzenie akcjonariuszy' (shareholders' general meeting), making the resource clear. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb and does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_conference_summary.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_conference_summary or get_company_analysis. The only usage-like hint, 'Use 5+ for historical comparison,' is in the schema's limit parameter, not in the description.

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