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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the credit-pool consumption model, the 24-hour cache window that makes repeated calls free, and that amounts are in PLN. It does not cover failure behavior (e.g. unknown KRS/NIP) or result formatting, which keeps it off a 5.

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 resource and its full contents are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by billing rules and the parameter instruction — a sensible order. The enumeration is long but every item is a distinct data category an agent might need to know exists, so it earns its length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so exhaustively by data category, plus currency (PLN) and cost model. For a zero-required-param, read-only aggregate tool, an agent has everything needed to decide and invoke.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already explain themselves, including 'gdy nie znasz KRS' for nip. The description's 'Podaj krs albo nip' restates the either/or relation already implied in the schema rather than adding new semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 names the specific resource (komplet danych spółki z KRS) and enumerates exactly what comes back: dane rejestrowe, PKD, kapitał, zarząd, scoring A–E, finanse, kredyt kupiecki, KRZ, Biała lista VAT, beneficjenci, wycena. This enumeration implicitly separates it from narrower siblings such as finanse, sprawozdanie, crbr and katalog, which it names directly.

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?

It explains the cost model — 1 credit per company per 24h, with follow-up calls for the same company (including finanse, sprawozdanie, crbr) free — which effectively tells the agent to call this first and reuse the budget window. It also states the input requirement (krs albo nip). What is missing is an explicit statement of when NOT to use it, e.g. when only a single data slice is needed.

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