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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it is free and does not consume credits, and it returns candidate records with CUI, locality, and state.

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 short sentences with zero wasted words, front-loading the action and the return fields. The workflow hint for `verifica_firma` follows logically and the credit-free note is kept brief.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough. It explains what is searched, what is returned, the cost model, and the recommended next tool, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 the single `query` parameter is fully documented in the schema with type, minimum length, and meaning. The description only restates that it searches by company name and adds no further syntax, format, or matching behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: searching the national trade registry by company name. It also names the return fields (CUI, locality, state) and explicitly routes the agent to the sibling tool `verifica_firma` for the next step, making it clearly distinguishable from siblings.

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?

It says to use the resulting CUI with `verifica_firma`, providing explicit workflow guidance and an alternative for the next action. It also states the tool is free and does not consume credits, giving useful context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs `prospecteaza_firme`.

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