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

The idempotentHint annotation already covers idempotency, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond it: the firm stays in Radar with its history and nothing is deleted. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but for this operation the state guarantee is the meaningful disclosure.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the effect, followed by the non-deletion guarantee and the alternative. Every clause carries information; the trailing 'Idempotent' merely restates the annotation.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering idempotency, the description states what changes and what is preserved, which is enough to call it correctly. Only marginal gaps remain (e.g., error behavior for unknown CUI).

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 string parameter (cui) at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format or syntax detail for cui, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (opreste) plus resource (alerte) plus scope (pentru o firma din Radar). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling radar_elimina by stating it does not delete anything, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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?

States the effect (stop alerts, keep the company) and names the alternative for a different need: 'pentru stergere exista radar_elimina'. The routing condition is explicit and leaves nothing to inference.

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