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

Although annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds substantive behavioral context that annotations cannot: daily automatic re-verification, in-account alerts on verdict change, a 25-company cap on free accounts, no cap on paid plans, and no charge. This is exactly what an agent needs to know beyond the structured hints.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism first, then the quota, then cost/idempotency. No redundant restatement of the name or title.

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 follow action with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scheduling, notification, cost, quota, and repeat-call safety. The only minor gap is that it doesn't say what the immediate response looks like (for example, a confirmation that the company is now followed), but the notification model substitutes for an 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 coverage is 100% on the single parameter, and the schema description itself explains the CUI format (with/without RO prefix) and points to cauta_firma when only the name is known. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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 opens with a concrete verb plus resource ('Adaugă firma în lista de urmărire'), and then immediately distinguishes the tool from the lookup siblings by explaining that it sets up recurring re-verification, not a one-off check. The mentioned notification behavior also clearly separates it from a plain search.

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 gives useful guidance on the preconditions: the free plan allows up to 25 companies, paid plans have no cap, the call is free, and repeating the call on the same company changes nothing. However, it never names alternatives: opreste_urmarirea (stop following) and firme_urmarite (list follows) are siblings. The advice to use cauta_firma first only appears in the schema, not here.

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