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

Adds real behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: billing of 3 credits, no charge when nothing is found, output language (English), currency (RON), and the negative=loss sign convention. Missing only things like data lag or empty-result shape, which is minor given the annotations.

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 source and key, then lists fields. The long metric enumeration is informative but slightly list-heavy; the cost caveat at the end is well placed.

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 does the work of describing return values and units, and covers billing and sign conventions. It stops short of stating result shape (per-year records vs aggregate) or what happens with no filings, which for a 2-param read tool is a modest gap.

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 both parameters are already documented including the CUI example format and the years default/max. The description only echoes 'by CUI' and adds no semantics for the years limit, 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 verb+resource (annual financial statements filed with ANAF) plus the exact key input (CUI) and enumerates the returned metrics, which visually separates it from siblings like get_company_risk_report or lookup_company. An agent can tell what it gets without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by 'for a Romanian company (by CUI)' and the cost note, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative such as get_company_risk_report for risk analysis. The agent must infer routing from sibling names.

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