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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it is 'Read-only' and specifies data sources (KRS, REGON, CEIDG public registers), which provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 four sentences with front-loaded purpose, concise usage guidance, return details, and data source info. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description lists key return fields (address, legal form, status, KRS, REGON, PKD, board members, VAT status). Annotations cover safety and idempotence. The description is complete enough for an AI agent to understand what the tool does and what data it returns.

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% with a clear description and pattern for the single parameter 'nip'. The description adds that it is a '10-digit tax ID', but the schema already specifies 'Polish tax ID (NIP), 10 digits' and a pattern. Thus, the description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it gets the full registry profile of a Polish company by NIP. It lists specific return fields (address, legal form, status, KRS, REGON, PKD, board members, VAT status) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_company that likely search by name.

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 explicitly says 'USE THIS when the user gives a NIP and wants company details...', providing a clear when-to-use directive. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use but implies it's not for other queries like checking risk flags or VAT whitelist, which are separate sibling tools.

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