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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds value by listing the specific data points returned (e.g., insolvency, dissolution), providing concrete behavioral insight beyond the 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the flags efficiently. No unnecessary words.

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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns. It lists all relevant status flags, and no additional context (e.g., pagination) is needed.

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 clarify the parameter. It mentions 'by CUI' but does not define CUI or explain its format. For a single required parameter, minimal explanation is acceptable but could be more explicit, e.g., 'Romanian company tax ID'.

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 verb 'Get company status' and specifies the resource: status flags by CUI. It lists the exact flags included (registration, VAT, fiscal activity, insolvency, dissolution, e-Factura), distinguishing it from sibling tools like financials or profile.

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 implies when to use (when you need company status flags), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. No exclusion criteria or context for choosing over siblings like get_company_financials or search_companies.

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