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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context the annotations cannot: the returned fields (id, titlu, pret de pornire, localitate, data licitatiei, link), which is important since there is no output schema, and the truncated-result behavior ('o lista scurta').

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 dense sentences, no filler, with the catalog scope and the return shape front-loaded before the get_listing hand-off. Slightly heavy in enumeration, but every clause carries information.

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 11 optional parameters, no output schema and no required fields, the description fills the two real gaps: what the result set looks like and how to get full details. Minor omissions remain (pagination/limit behavior, sort semantics), but nothing essential to calling it correctly 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 description coverage is 82%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, including enum meanings (procedure, category) and examples (region, q). The description only restates the filter dimensions (text, categorie, procedura, regiune, interval de pret, licitatie) without adding format or default semantics, so the 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?

States a specific verb (Cauta) and resource (anunturi active de vanzare) plus the exact catalog (LICHIDARE.MD) and the source domains (insolvabilitate, executare silita, gaj bancar, SFS, primarii). It also names the sibling get_listing as the follow-up for details, so an agent can separate search from retrieval without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: this tool returns a short list, and 'detaliile se obtin cu get_listing' tells the agent when to switch to the sibling. It gives no exclusion conditions or guidance against using other siblings like upcoming_auctions or market_overview, so it falls short of a full 5.

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