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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the cost and its refund condition, the meaning and direction of the 0-100 score, that ONRC data is only "when available" (partial results possible), and an informational-only caveat. It omits any note on auth/prerequisites or response latency/rate limits, so a small gap remains.

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?

One front-loaded sentence covers the resource, the data composition, and the score semantics, followed by two short caveats (informational only; cost behavior). No filler and no repetition of the title or schema.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey the return shape — it does so by listing covered sections plus the score range and direction and the presence of explained flags. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 schema already documents the single parameter including both accepted formats (14399840 or RO14399840). The description only restates "by CUI" and adds the unknown-CUI billing behavior, so the standard baseline of 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 names a specific verb and resource (one-call due-diligence report for a Romanian company by CUI) and enumerates exactly what it aggregates: ANAF status, 3 years of financials, court cases from portal.just.ro, and ONRC data. This lets an agent distinguish it from narrower siblings like get_company_financials, get_company_court_cases, and lookup_company 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 clearly frames the use case (consolidated due diligence in one call) and supplies the decision-relevant constraint that it costs 8 credits, with no charge for an unknown CUI — useful for choosing it over cheaper single-purpose siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives or stating when not to use the aggregate.

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