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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses key behaviors: it is read-only (returns data, no modifications), requires authentication (401 for anonymous), implies cost via credits ('1 credit per apel' and the confirm flow), and describes pagination, data source (ONRC), and privacy (no CNP). The description also explains the confidence levels, which is critical for interpreting results. It only lacks explicit rate-limit disclaimers, but the cost/auth/privacy coverage is exceptional for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 well-structured with clear headers and bullet points, front-loading the purpose and key usage scenarios. It is longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence earns its place by adding functional detail. The inclusion of the `linkConfidence` legend and the confirmation flow are particularly valuable. It could trim some repetition (e.g., the cost is mentioned twice), but this does not detract significantly.

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?

This is a complex tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: the required ID's origin, the default behavior, the pagination options, the cost model (credits, EUR/RON, confirm), the data-source legality, the absence of CNP, and the interpretation of confidence levels. It even provides the exact `companyTaxId` field for checking membership. Although an output schema is absent, the description volunteers the response structure in detail, so agents have a complete mental model. Nothing critical 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%, but the description elevates each parameter with critical context. It explains that `limit` and `offset` control pagination, that `onlyActive` defaults to true and can be set to false for historical roles, and that `confirm` is a cost-consent gate. It also clarifies the deprecated aliases (`page` and `pageSize`) encouraging use of `offset` and `limit`. This goes well beyond the schema's basic type hints, making parameter semantics exceptionally clear.

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 is precise: it names the specific verb ('Returnează profilul complet al unei persoane fizice'), the resource (person identified by ID), and its scope (roles, companies, confidence levels). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like search_persons by stating it takes an ID and returns a full profile, and from get_company by focusing on person-centric data. It also provides concrete use-case examples, eliminating any ambiguity about its role.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('CÂND îl folosești' section) with four concrete scenarios, each mapping to specific fields like `roleCategory: procedural` and `isActive`. It also explains when NOT to use it implicitly by noting that direct calls follow `search_persons`, and it provides explicit instructions on using the `confirm` parameter as a prerequisite for paid calls. This is a model of usage guidance.

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