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

The readOnlyHint=false annotation already indicates this is not read-only, and the description correctly implies an interactive query. The input schema adds meaningful behavioral context: 'silent' says no persistence, agentLabel flags agent-origin so summarizer/RAG skip it, and reasoningMode imposes an anti-slop guardrail. These details go beyond the annotation and tell the agent what side effects to expect.

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 Polish sentence: 'Query to the Market Agent assistant in natural language.' It is concise and front-loaded, but it omits any detail about behavior, parameters, or when to use it. The valuable parameter details live in the schema, yet the description itself could have carried more weight in the same space.

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 chat-like tool with no output schema and 4 parameters already fully described in the schema, the description covers the essential query intent. The language constraint (Polish) is important in the schema. The guidance is minimal but sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly; the main gap is not addressing the broad sibling set, but the overall completeness is acceptable.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the Polish-language requirement for message and by giving concrete examples of agentLabel and the reasoningMode chain behavior, which helps an agent fill the parameters correctly beyond mere type definitions.

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 says this is a natural-language query to the Market Agent assistant, but the name 'query_companion' and the Polish phrase 'Agenta Rynku' are vague about what kind of questions it answers or what resource it acts on. It is hard to distinguish from the many get_* tools that also answer questions, so it lacks clear differentiation.

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 conveys that it is for natural-language questions to the assistant, but it does not give explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, such as 'use this for open-ended questions, use specific get_* tools for structured data'. Context signals like the silent parameter imply cron usage, but the description does not explain when to choose this tool over the extensive sibling list.

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