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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description need only add beyond that. It does: results ordered most-recent-first, 100 rows per page, and identical lots collapsed into a single line — details an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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 that front-loads the resource and scope, then packs fields, ordering, page size, deduplication and cost with no wasted words.

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, and the description names the key returned fields and ordering, so an agent knows what to expect. Minor gap: nothing about total counts or how to detect the last page, though pagination mechanics are mostly covered by the 100-rows-per-page note.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by disclosing the fixed page size of 100 rows, which tells the agent how the 'page' parameter maps to result volume — a useful complement to the schema's bare 'Pagina (implicit 1)'.

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: contracts awarded to the firm as supplier in SEAP public procurement, plus the returned fields (contracting authority, object, value, date). It is clearly distinct from siblings like bilanturi_firma or datorii_anaf, though it does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling.

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 only implied: the 'ca furnizor' scope tells the agent this is supplier-side awards, and 'Gratuit' signals cost. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative statement; the pointer to cauta_firma for name-to-CUI lookup lives in the schema, not the description.

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