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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by describing the shape of the result (linked companies plus their status counts) and disclosing cost ('Gratuit'), which annotations cannot express. It stops short of stating result limits or pagination.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first defines the resource and its output, the second covers use case and cost. Front-loaded, 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only, closed-world lookup with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (linked firms with status) and that it is free. Minor gaps remain around result size limits and per-company fields, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema itself even routes the agent to cauta_firma when only a name is known. The description contributes nothing about 'cui', so the 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?

The description states a specific resource ('alte firme care au în conducere aceleași persoane ca firma dată') and what it returns ('starea fiecăreia — câte sunt în insolvență sau radiate'), which is distinct from profil_firma, istoric_firma, or compara_firme. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Util pentru grupuri de firme și pentru a vedea istoricul oamenilor din spatele firmei' gives a usage context, but there are no exclusions or routing advice (e.g., when to prefer istoric_firma or profil_firma instead). The agent must infer the boundary from the sibling list.

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