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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose real behavior: the ONRC representatives source table and diacritic-insensitive matching ('popescu' matches 'POPESCU'). However it never states that the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, or how permissions/quota apply.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero padding; the core purpose and source lead, then matching behavior, then the routing hint. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description should hint at what comes back, but it never says whether results are company records, director entries, or match counts. The purpose and matching semantics are complete enough to call it, but the return shape is left entirely to inference.

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 should compensate, but it only implies that 'name' is a person's name and says nothing about 'max_results'. The max_results default of 10 is at least captured structurally in the schema, and the name parameter is inferable from the stated purpose, so this is adequate rather than rich.

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 ('Find Romanian companies by the name of a director') plus the data source (the ONRC representatives table), which is more precise than a generic search. The closing clause 'when you know a person rather than a firm' cleanly separates it from sibling firm-oriented tools like lookup_business.

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?

Explicitly states the condition for use: 'when you know a person rather than a firm', which implies the alternative (a company-name lookup) exists. It never names the sibling to switch to, and gives no exclusion cases (e.g. partial names, multiple directors), so it stops short of a 5.

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