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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the deterministic build from named public sources (ANAF, MF balances, court/insolvency, BPI), a 1-credit cost, and a human-readable report link in the response. It does not mention latency, caching, or failure modes, 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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded and load-bearing: purpose and data provenance first, then usage triggers, then cost and output. 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?

With no output schema, the description still specifies the return shape (color verdict plus report link), the data sources, and the cost. Combined with annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% and the single parameter already documents the optional RO prefix and PFA applicability, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 names a specific output (verdict de risc comercial verde/galben/roșu) for a specific resource (firmă românească), which no sibling (cauta_firma, prospecteaza_firme) produces. An agent can distinguish this risk-scoring tool from company search/prospecting siblings without opening any schema.

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 concrete trigger conditions: use before the user issues invoices with payment terms, signs contracts, or pays advances. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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