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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds genuinely new context: what is returned (canonical symbols, ISIN, public URLs) and that results are bounded with truncation made explicit. Minor gap: doesn't say how truncation is signalled.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then scope and return-value/truncation notes. No filler.

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 description appropriately names the returned fields and the truncation behavior, and annotations already cover the safety profile. It could be slightly more explicit about limit semantics, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains the query parameter's accepted forms well (name, ticker, alias, ISIN) and hints at result bounding, but never clarifies the limit parameter's default, range, or that it controls result count.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find active GPW companies') plus the searchable fields (name, ticker, alias, ISIN). Explicitly scopes to a single market, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling financial-data tools without inspecting the schema.

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 phrase 'before requesting financial data' positions it as the lookup step preceding the sibling tools, and 'does not search other markets' is a clear exclusion. It stops short of naming a sibling tool or stating failure/empty-result handling, so not a full 5.

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