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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose materially useful traits: source (Ministry of Finance filings), currency (RON), and time scope (latest fiscal year on record only, not historical). It does not state auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior when no filings exist for a CUI.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the returned-data scope is front-loaded before the prerequisite caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description is what defines the response (fields, currency, single fiscal year) — which it does adequately. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (no filings found, invalid CUI) for a lone-parameter lookup.

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 0% for the single required 'cui' parameter, so the description must compensate; it only implies the parameter identifies a company and that a name is insufficient. It adds no format, validation, or example for the CUI value itself.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (annual financial statements for a Romanian company) and enumerates the returned content (revenue, profit, headcount, balance-sheet lines, in RON, latest fiscal year). An agent can separate it from lookup_financial_ratios (ratios) and lookup_business (firm resolution) without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: 'Resolve the firm with lookup_business first if you only have a name.' That is a clear prerequisite and names the alternative. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g. vs lookup_financial_ratios) or what to do when filings are absent.

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