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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses real side effects: reactivating an existing alert and silently adding the company to Radar if it is not present. That auto-add behavior is important context an agent would not get from the schema or annotations alone. The word 'Idempotent' merely repeats the annotation, but the rest genuinely adds value.

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 short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and side effects following. Efficient overall, with only minor redundancy in the trailing 'Idempotent.' restating 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 full schema coverage and an idempotency annotation, the description covers what the tool does and the key side effect. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be 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 description coverage is 100% (the single cui parameter is documented as 'CUI-ul firmei'), so the structured field already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the cui format or validation, making the baseline 3 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: start alerts for a company in Radar, with the additional behavior that it reactivates an existing entry or adds the company if absent. It is clearly separable from the sibling alerte_opreste, though it stops short of explicitly naming that counterpart.

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?

Usage is implied by the statement that the tool works on a company in Radar and reactivates it, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never routes the agent to the obvious alternative alerte_opreste for stopping alerts, nor clarifies how it relates to radar_adauga.

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