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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: it is free, every block carries its source date (freshness/trust signal), and it does not hit live court records. It stops short of saying whether data is cached or how stale the registry snapshot can be, so not 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?

The core claim is front-loaded in the first clause, and the two trailing sentences (source dating, free, no live court query + alternative) each earn their place. The middle enumeration of data blocks is long but it is payload, not filler — it is what tells the agent this is a superset tool. Slightly dense as a single sentence.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so block by block, including the financial-health and term/limit recommendation outputs. Combined with the freshness caveat and the sibling routing rule, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 parameter's description already covers the RO-prefix tolerance and the name-to-CUI fallback via cauta_firma. The description adds nothing about the cui argument. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully carries parameter meaning.

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?

"Tot ce știe Firmoscop despre o firmă românească, într-un singur apel" states a specific resource and scope, then enumerates the concrete blocks returned (identity, fiscal, balance sheets, representatives, parent companies, registry history, public contracts). An agent can distinguish it from bilanturi_firma, istoric_firma, or contracte_publice without opening any schema, because those are framed as subsets of this aggregate.

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?

It gives an explicit exclusion plus the alternative: "Nu interoghează instanțele live — pentru verdictul de risc folosește verifica_firma", which routes the agent correctly for risk scoring. The schema adds a second routing rule (name-only → cauta_firma), and "Gratuit" removes cost as a decision factor. When-to-use, when-not, and alternatives are all covered.

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