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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the scan purpose. There is no mention of output shape, ranking semantics, rate limits, or what happens with the limit and penalty parameters, so the description adds little beyond structured metadata.

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 clear sentence with no filler, and the key verb and object are front-loaded. It earns its place despite being short.

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 no usage guidance, a minimal purpose sentence leaves gaps: the agent must infer what the scan returns, how results are ranked, and how this relates to sibling tools. The parameter schema is rich, but the description does not fully compensate for the missing output and selection context.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Skan spółek') plus the scan objective ('zbliżających się raportów i przewidywanego zaskoczenia'), so an agent understands what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_earnings_calendar or find_opportunities, so full distinction is left to inference.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage signal is the implicit purpose in the scan phrase, which is too thin to route an agent confidently among the many related scanning and opportunity tools.

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