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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the official ONRC source, registry size, diacritic-insensitive matching, all-digit-CUI behavior, and that max_results caps returned rows. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or return structure, but adds substantial context for a read-only lookup.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and search semantics. The usage note and max_results note each add value without padding.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete for calling the tool: it covers registry, query format, and row cap. It stops short of describing returned fields or access requirements, leaving a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must document parameters. It explains that query accepts either a company name or CUI, gives actionable diacritic/ASCII guidance, notes all-digit queries match CUI, and clarifies that max_results caps rows returned.

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: look up a Romanian company by name or CUI in the official ONRC registry. It also positions itself as the natural first call, which helps separate it from enrichment, category, director, and domain siblings.

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 clear context with 'The natural first call for a Romanian company question,' so the agent knows when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not name alternatives such as enrich_company or lookup_by_category, nor does it state when-not to use it.

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