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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the underlying source is the trade registry index, the call is free, and results are candidate lists rather than a single resolved match — which matters for how an agent should treat ambiguity.

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?

Three compact sentences, all load-bearing: what it does, what it returns and that it is free, then which sibling to hand the CUI to. The core action is front-loaded with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and frames results as candidates. For a one-parameter lookup this is nearly sufficient; a brief note on how candidates are ranked or how many typically come back would close the last gap.

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 100% and the single param already documents both the name-fragment (min 3 chars) and CUI forms. The description restates the name-or-CUI duality without adding format, partial-match, or ambiguity-resolution guidance 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?

States a specific verb and resource — searching the national trade registry index by company name or confirming a CUI — and names the exact fields returned (CUI, localitate, stare). This clearly separates it from siblings like profil_firma or verifica_firma, which are referenced as downstream steps rather than alternatives.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use the resulting CUI with profil_firma for the full record or verifica_firma for the risk verdict, and notes the call is free. It gives a clear when-to-use but stops short of stating exclusions, such as when to skip this and go straight to a known CUI elsewhere.

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