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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it is exceptionally thorough. It discloses cap behavior (`capReached`, empty lists, meaning of cap message), distinguishes `governance from `procedural` legal representatives, warns about radiated companies, explains phone-number handling (`phone.known`, `phone.seeOn`), and details the quote-vs-confirm flow. This goes well beyond a minimal description.

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 description is long, but the length is justified by the tool's complexity: costs, caps, free alternatives, and a confirmation flow all need explanation. It is organized into clear paragraphs and uses clear warnings. The leading keyword block is somewhat redundant and could be trimmed, but the rest is dense and purposeful rather than filler.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the full operational contract: required CUI, available sub-resources, credit costs, cap semantics, confirmation flow, and even how to phrase results to users regarding radiated companies and capped legal representatives. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and to handle edge cases.

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?

The schema already documents `taxId`, `unlock`, `confirm`, and `include` well, giving a baseline of 3; the description enriches this substantially by enumerating accepted modifiers like `balanceSheets:last10`, `balanceSheets:2020-2024`, `"*"`, and object-form examples. However, there is a conflict: the description claims the `include` parameter can be an object, while the input schema declares `include` as `array` or `null` only. This inconsistency slightly muddies what an agent can safely send.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returnează profilul unei companii românești după CUI' and explicitly contrasts it with `search_companies`, which finds companies by criteria. This clearly distinguishes the tool and disambiguates it from its closest sibling. The additional `include` options further specify what is possible without ambiguity.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use it when you already have the CUI and want a profile, naming `search_companies` as the alternative. It also gives prescriptive usage rules: prefer a single `include` call over multiple tool-calls, requires `confirm: true` for credit-consuming calls, and instructs when to use `unlock` only after explicit user consent. This is actionable and prevents misuse.

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