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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real context beyond them: provenance (Ministry of Finance from 2008, with ANAF filling gaps) and units ('whole lei (RON)'), which prevents unit misinterpretation. It does not mention pagination or how large multi-year responses behave, keeping it below a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the resource and scope, with no filler; every clause (source, window, field list, units, year behavior) carries information. The parenthetical about ANAF gaps is slightly convoluted and costs a bit of readability.

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?

With only 2 parameters, full schema coverage and annotations, the description does the remaining work well: it names the source systems, the historical coverage, and the returned metrics (turnover, profit, assets, debts, equity, employees), which compensates for the absent output schema. Only return shape/row-per-year structure is left implicit.

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 100% and both parameters are documented there (CUI with/without RO prefix, year with 'Without it, all years'). The description only restates the year default ('All years, or one'), adding no new semantics beyond the schema.

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?

A specific verb+resource ('annual financial statements of a Romanian company') plus the exact source (Ministry of Finance, supplemented by ANAF), coverage window (from 2008 on) and the fields returned. An agent can distinguish this from find_company/lookup_company, which identify companies rather than return their statements.

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?

Usage is implied by the required CUI and the 'All years, or one' phrasing, but the description never states when to pick this over siblings like get_company_events or check_invoice, nor prerequisites (e.g., that the CUI must be known first).

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