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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that name matching is diacritic-insensitive, that id is always an array and combines with name via AND, and that the return fields include shortCode (license plate code). It does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, but as a search tool this is implied and not misleading. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with a keyword block that is redundant for an AI agent but not harmful. The core description is well-structured with 'Când îl folosești' and 'Graniță' sections, making it easy to scan. It is longer than necessary due to the keyword list, but every sentence in the main body earns its place.

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 simple search tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains what it returns, when to use it, the boundary with a sibling tool, and provides usage examples. Nothing an agent needs to call 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 coverage is 100% (all parameters described). The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the meaning of shortCode (license plate code) and clarifying how id and name interact (combinat cu name aplică și name). It also gives example values like 'clu' and 'bistrița', which help the agent understand the fuzzy matching. While it doesn't detail limit/offset beyond schema, the added value is sufficient to raise the baseline from 3.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: it searches the Romanian county nomenclator (41 counties + Bucharest) by partial name or ID and returns {id, name, slug, shortCode}. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming search_companies as the alternative for filtering companies, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides concrete use cases (e.g., 'Ce județ are codul CJ?', validating misspelled county names) and explicitly states when NOT to use it: for filtering companies, search_companies handles county resolution directly. This gives the agent clear decision criteria.

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