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

With readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false already covering safety, the description still adds real operational context: cost of 1 credit per API-key connection, a free re-check window of 7 days for the same company, deterministic construction from official sources queried at source, and a human-readable report link in the response. It does not cover failure modes (unknown CUI, unavailable sources) or what the free re-check requires, keeping it short of 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 verdict and its sources are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by when to use it and then cost/caching. Three dense sentences, no filler, nothing repeated from annotations.

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 tool with no output schema, the description conveys the output's core shape (green/yellow/red verdict plus a report link) and the underlying evidence categories. It leaves the response's detailed fields and the meaning of the intermediate color ambiguous, but no essential calling information is missing.

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 cui parameter is already documented as accepting the RO prefix and covering both companies and PFA-holders. The description adds no normalization, formatting, or lookup-failure guidance beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific artifact (a traffic-light commercial risk verdict) for a specific resource (a Romanian company) and enumerates the sources it aggregates (ANAF, MF filings, court dockets, BPI). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like profil_firma, datorii_anaf, or bilanturi_firma, which each expose one slice of that data.

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 explicit triggering situations: before issuing invoices with payment terms, signing contracts, or paying advances. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or a when-not condition (e.g. when a single-source cheaper check like datorii_anaf suffices), so the routing is clear on the positive side only.

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