Firme Romanesti

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that amounts are in RON and lists fields, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. This provides some value beyond annotations but is minimal.

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, clear sentence that front-loads key information. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured with separate sentences for parameter details.

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 limited parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on how the years parameter works, handling of invalid CUI, or whether data is complete for all years. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 compensate. It explains that cui identifies the company and that data is yearly, but does not describe the format of cui or the purpose of the years parameter (e.g., number of years back). The meaning is partially conveyed but insufficient for an agent to understand usage precisely.

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 tool retrieves yearly financial history for a company by CUI, listing specific data fields (revenue, profit, employees, total assets and liabilities). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like get_company_profile or get_company_status, which focus on other aspects.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives or any prerequisites. The description does not mention scenarios, limitations, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without context for proper tool selection.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it does not return contact details and mentions accepting an 'RO' prefix, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like authorization needs or rate limits. It adds moderate value beyond 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 immediately conveys the core purpose. It front-loads the main action and includes both inclusion and exclusion details without any redundant 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?

Given no output schema, the description enumerates return fields adequately (identity, address, CAEN activities, financials, freshness). It also states what is not returned. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential error conditions or data format specifics.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions that 'cui' accepts an optional 'RO' prefix, which adds some meaning beyond the schema's type definition. However, it does not explain the format or constraints in detail, leaving ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 'fetch' and the resource 'Romanian company by CUI'. It enumerates the specific data returned (identity, address, CAEN activities, financials, freshness) and explicitly excludes contact details, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_company_financials.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_companies or get_company_status. It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context about the specific status flags returned (registration, VAT, insolvency, etc.). It does not contradict 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, efficient sentence that lists the returned information. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description adequately covers the purpose and output. It does not need to explain return values extensively.

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, the description compensates by stating the parameter is the CUI (company identifier) used to retrieve status. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema constraints.

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 that the tool retrieves public status flags for a company by CUI, listing specific status types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_company_financials or get_company_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 usage for obtaining company status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or comparison with sibling tools is given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that labels are in Romanian and hierarchy components are returned, but does not cover behavior on invalid codes or case sensitivity. Adds moderate value beyond 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?

Two concise sentences front-loaded with the verb 'Look up'. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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?

Simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema. Description fully covers what is returned (label + hierarchy, language). No gaps given the tool's complexity.

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%, but the description explains that the parameter is a Romanian CAEN (NACE) activity code, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and length constraints. Could be improved with an example or format hint, but adequate for a single parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the tool looks up a Romanian CAEN (NACE) activity code, returning its official label and hierarchy (section, division, parent). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle company data.

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 usage (when you have a CAEN code and need details) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like company search tools. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, confirming it is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral traits: pagination (25 results, opaque cursor), default year for financial filters (2024), and the requirement to provide at least one filter. It does not contradict 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 concise at three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the core function, explaining pagination and year behavior, and providing a usage requirement. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details.

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 tool's complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, rich annotations), the description covers the main use case, pagination, and a key requirement (at least one filter). It could be more complete by explaining the return format or each parameter's meaning, but it provides enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 and 15 parameters, the description partially compensates by listing the filter types (name, CAEN activity, county/locality, revenue/profit/employee ranges, VAT status) and mentioning the opaque cursor and year. However, it does not explain individual parameters like 'judet', 'caen_code', or 'query' in detail, and fails to describe constraints like string lengths or ranges, leaving the agent to infer from schema names.

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 that the tool searches and filters a specific company directory (Firme Românești) by multiple criteria. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_company_financials, get_company_profile, get_company_status, and resolve_caen, which focus on retrieving specific details or resolving codes, while this tool is for broad search and filtering.

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 a clear usage context: it is for searching and filtering companies by various attributes. It explicitly states 'Provide at least one filter,' which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. its siblings, though the context makes it obvious.

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