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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, yet the description adds real context: the exact field set returned and the neutrality stance (facts only, no recommendation). It omits error behavior for unknown CUIs and how missing balance-sheet data is represented, which keeps 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?

One dense front-loaded sentence delivering the resource and the comparison dimensions, followed by a short neutrality note. The field enumeration is long but each item is informative; no filler beyond the mild redundancy of citing '2–5' again.

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?

No output schema exists, so the enumerated fact list effectively documents what comes back, which is the right call for this tool. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and handling of firms with no balance sheet, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 'cuiuri' array already carries the 2–5 min/max bounds; the description merely restates '2–5 firme' without adding format guidance (e.g. whether CUI prefixes like 'RO' are accepted). Baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and scope ('Pune 2–5 firme una lângă alta pe aceleași fapte') and enumerates the exact dimensions compared (registry status, CAEN, VAT, balance sheet, ANAF arrears, public contracts, related firms). This clearly separates it from single-firm siblings like verifica_firma or profil_firma.

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 comparative use case is implied by 'una lângă alta' and by the closing note 'Arată faptele; alegerea rămâne a utilizatorului', but the description never says explicitly when to prefer it over calling single-firm tools repeatedly, nor does it name an alternative.

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