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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, but the description adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot: credit cost and the no-result billing exemption, GDPR masking of natural persons, and that criminal cases suppress detail with a criminalDetailsWithheld: true flag. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs to interpret results and decide to call.

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?

Front-loads the core definition, then adds GDPR, criminal-case withholding, and cost in descending priority with no filler. The first sentence is dense with a return-field enumeration, but that is justified because no output schema exists to carry it.

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 and five parameters, the description discharges the full burden: it describes the summary composition, the per-case fields, masking behavior, criminal-case suppression, billing, and that the summary spans all cases. Nothing material for a correct call or result interpretation 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%, so the schema already explains cui, role, category, limit (including that summary covers all) and since with its default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that — e.g. it never clarifies role/category value semantics or date-window interaction with the summary — so 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 resource (court cases for a Romanian company, keyed by CUI) plus the source registry (portal.just.ro, Ministry of Justice) and enumerates the returned artifacts (summary plus case list). An agent can tell this apart from the single-case sibling get_court_case because the scope is explicitly 'a company by CUI is a party' rather than one case.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource description, and the cost note ('Costs 15 credits; not billed if nothing is found') is genuinely useful for deciding whether to call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of siblings like get_court_case or get_company_risk_report that might cover overlapping legal data.

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