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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavioral context by specifying the data is 'public' and listing the exact status categories returned. This goes beyond the annotations to clarify the nature and scope of the response.

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 key purpose and lists all relevant status types. Every word adds value, with no 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return content by naming the status categories. It does not describe response formatting or edge cases, but the tool's simplicity and strong annotations make this acceptable.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the 'cui' parameter, but the description explicitly clarifies that the parameter is a CUI (company identifier). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's raw type definition, though it does not elaborate on format 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 the tool retrieves public status flags for a company by CUI and enumerates specific status types (registration, VAT, fiscal activity, insolvency, dissolution, e-Factura). This specific scope 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 when needing company status flags, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling tool names give context, but the description itself lacks explicit usage differentiation.

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