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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's real addition is the per-call cost of 0.10 PLN and the source registry, both of which affect an agent's decision to call it. It does not describe pagination behavior despite limit/offset existing, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads what the tool returns, then the source, then the cost. No filler, no restating of the title or name, and the cost caveat is appended where it is easy to see.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so well (totals per year plus per-grant fields), and it discloses cost and data source. It stops short of explaining pagination/limits or what happens when no aid records exist.

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 33% (only krs is documented), and the description says nothing about any input parameter — it only describes returned fields. The krs entry in the schema is strong (pattern, example, pointer to search_companies) and limit/offset are conventional with defaults and bounds, but the description itself does not compensate for the coverage gap as required at this coverage level.

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 (received) plus resource (public/state aid) and enumerates the returned content: yearly totals and individual grants with date, amount in PLN, form, purpose and granting authority. It also names the data source (SUDOP/UOKiK), which distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling get_public_contracts.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it needs a KRS number and that this returns aid data rather than contracts. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing between this tool and get_public_contracts or get_financials.

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