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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing that it returns up to 25 results per page with an opaque cursor, financial filters use a single year (default 2024), and at least one filter is required. These details help the agent anticipate pagination and filtering behavior. It does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint).

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 three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds essential details (pagination, year default, filter requirement). Every sentence adds unique value without being verbose.

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 complexity (15 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers filtering capabilities, pagination, and a default year. It does not explain the output format or fields, which would be helpful. However, for a search tool with optional filters, it provides sufficient context for basic use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 15 parameters, the description partially compensates by grouping parameter types (e.g., name, CAEN activity, county/locality, revenue/profit/employee ranges, VAT status). However, it does not explain individual parameters like cursor, active_only, or the exact meaning of min/max ranges, leaving some ambiguity.

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 it searches and filters a company directory by multiple criteria, and it distinguishes from sibling tools (which are for specific lookups like profile or financials). The verb 'Search and filter' and the specific resource 'Firme Românești company directory' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context: it is a search tool with pagination (opaque cursor), default year, and the requirement to provide at least one filter. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_company_financials for financial details), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or 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.