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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's mentions of "Idempotent" and "Nu sterge nimic" restate structured data. However, it adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: the firm remains in Radar with its history intact but stops emitting alerts, which tells the agent exactly what state change occurs and what is preserved.

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?

A single tight passage with zero waste. The core action and its effect are front-loaded, followed by the non-deletion clarification and the alternative pointer.

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 one-parameter mutation with full annotations, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: the state change, what is preserved, that it's idempotent, and where deletion lives instead. Nothing essential 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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents cui fully. Baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, but none is needed.

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 ("opreste" = stop) and resource (alerte for a firm in Radar) with a precise scope: the firm stays with its history but sends no alerts. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling radar_elimina, so an agent can tell deletion from muting 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?

Names the alternative explicitly ("pentru stergere exista radar_elimina") and clarifies the boundary between stopping alerts and deleting a firm. It gives a clear condition but doesn't spell out when to prefer this over alerte_porneste, leaving that to the natural complementary naming.

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