Get profile of a procuring entity (zamawiający)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the return content (name, location, statistics, recent tenders, top winning contractors) and the tool's purpose (due diligence). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness, which are important for a tool fetching entity profiles.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently uses two sentences: one for the tool's function and return values, and another for its usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (fetching entity profiles with two parameters) and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of return content and usage context. However, it lacks details on output structure (e.g., format of statistics or tender lists) and behavioral aspects like errors or limits, leaving some gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (nip and include_winning_contractors). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the significance of the NIP or the impact of the boolean flag, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 the specific action ('Fetch a profile'), the resource ('Polish public procuring entity'), and the key identifier ('by its NIP'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on buyer profiles rather than statistics, contractors, tenders, or searches.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('for due diligence on who buys what and from whom'), which implicitly differentiates it from tools like get_contractor or get_tender. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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