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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a cost model ('1 point per returned record'), a default location scope (Bucharest), and matching behavior, which are meaningful. It omits return format and pagination behavior, but the disclosure provided is above baseline.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, with no filler sentences; each clause earns its place. Slightly dense with the trailing '1 point per returned record' fragment, but overall tight.

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 3-param search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers source, search mode, county filtering, matching rule, and cost. Only the relationship to run_ro_companies and return contents remain unaddressed.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema by documenting the '@ county' suffix syntax (name or code) and the default Bucharest scope. It does not clarify how start_page interacts with max_items.

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 and resource: search the Romania company registry (Ministry of Finance / ONRC) by name/CUI. It clearly identifies scope and data source but never names a sibling, so the distinction from run_ro_companies (the detail tool) is left to inference.

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?

Provides practical in-tool guidance ('Bucharest by default, add "@ cluj" to search another county') and query semantics ('all words must appear'). However it offers no guidance on when to pick this over run_ro_companies or run_search, so tool selection is only implied.

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