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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and covers key behaviors: caching ('Results are cached durably'), error handling ('falling back to an error if none is on file'), output structure ('quality-labelled contacts with confidence and source'), and combined operation ('in a single call'). No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: begins with a clear purpose sentence, then elaborates on the workflow, caching, and parameters. No redundant or extraneous information, and key details are front-loaded.

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 complexity (combining registry lookup and web scraping), the description covers purpose, parameters, caching, and output format. It lacks detailed return-field specification, but since no output schema is provided, the description gives sufficient context for an agent to understand what to expect.

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?

All three parameters are meaningfully explained beyond the schema. cui is defined as 'Romanian tax identification number', website's override behavior and fallback error are described, and max_pages includes a range ('1-20'). This fully compensates for the 0% schema 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 tool's purpose: 'Enrich a company: registry record + discovered contacts in one payload.' It specifies the exact actions (resolving ONRC record, crawling website, returning contacts) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the single-call combined functionality.

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 context about when to use the tool (when you need both registry data and contacts) but does not explicitly mention alternatives like lookup_business or extract_contacts, nor does it state when not to use it. The mention of 'single call' hints at consolidated usage but lacks explicit guidance.

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