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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false), and the description goes beyond them by disclosing a cost constraint ("Costă 1 credit/pagină"), the result-set scope ("Firme și PFA-uri, fără date de contact/reprezentanți") and the default sort order. Those are exactly the operational facts an agent needs and cannot get from the 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 front-loads the filter inventory, then adds exclusions, cost and routing. Every clause carries information, though the long parenthetical chain makes it harder to scan than a short bulleted structure would be.

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 17-parameter, no-output-schema tool with safety annotations, the description covers cost, sorting, result exclusions and cross-tool routing, which is close to sufficient. It does not indicate what identifying fields come back per firm (CUI, name, etc.), which is the main gap given there is no output schema.

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%, so the schema already carries the per-parameter semantics and the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning over it — the "41 = construcții" example and the diacritics-insensitive note both already appear in the property descriptions.

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+resource — lists Romanian firms filtered by a concretely enumerated set of criteria (CAEN, county, locality, legal form, turnover/employee bands, e-Factura, registration date), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, disambiguate itself from the sibling cauta_firma, leaving the agent to infer the split between bulk prospecting and name lookup.

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?

Gives an explicit usage context ("Ideal pentru lead-gen / cercetare de piață") and a concrete follow-up route ("folosește CUI-urile cu verifica_firma"), which is real cross-tool guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming cauta_firma as the alternative for single-firm lookups.

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