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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds real value on content — it discloses that each form carries a yes/no availability flag, a stated reason, conditions such as PESEL for CEIDG, capital/liability/registration/tax facts, and a legal basis — but says nothing about result volume or format beyond that. Given the low bar set by annotations, this is a solid 3.

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?

It is a single long sentence with no waste but also no structure — the two parenthetical enumerations (form types, return fields) make it dense and hard to scan. The core scope is front-loaded, which helps, but the middle clause about conditions and facts is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be spelled out, and the description does cover scope, the required owner_status filter, and the categories of facts returned. What is missing is routing against the closely related siblings compare_business_forms and plan_business_entry, which an agent choosing among 50+ tools needs.

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%, and the owner_status enum already expands every category including the third-country-equal sub-cases. The description only echoes that owner status drives a yes/no answer and gives one illustrative condition (PESEL for CEIDG); it adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific resource (all Polish business forms) and enumerates the actual form types covered (JDG, sp. z o.o., P.S.A., S.A., partnerships, branch, representative office), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling compare_business_forms, which plausibly overlaps, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The owner_status enums imply the tool is a filtered lookup, but the description never says to prefer this over compare_business_forms when the user wants a comparison, nor does it mention plan_business_entry as the planning alternative.

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