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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: the action is reversible ('poate fi pusă din nou sub urmărire oricând') and free ('Gratuit'), which helps the agent understand impact and cost. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 and front-loads the core action before adding reversibility and cost. Every sentence contributes useful information 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?

For a simple one-parameter mutation, the description plus annotations cover the key points: scope, reversibility, idempotency, and cost. It stops short of describing error behavior or confirmation output, but no output schema exists and the annotation set already covers idempotency.

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 'cui' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that it may include the RO prefix and how to find it via cauta_firma. The description itself adds no parameter details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Oprește urmărirea unei firme' (stop tracking a company), scoped to 'în contul tău'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tracking tool urmareste_firma and from listing tools like firme_urmarite.

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 description implies when to use it by saying it stops tracking, and notes the action is reversible at any time. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as urmareste_firma for re-following or firme_urmarite for viewing tracked companies, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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