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

Annotations already declare that this is a mutation, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it reactivates existing alerts and conditionally adds the company to Radar if it is not already present.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the fallback behavior, then a key property. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main side effects and idempotency. It could mention permissions or error behavior, but those are not essential given the structured metadata.

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% and the single parameter (cui) is documented in the schema. The description does not add further meaning about the CUI format or validation, so the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 action (starting alerts) for a specific resource (a company in Radar) and explains the fallback behavior of adding the company if absent. This clearly distinguishes it from the opposite sibling alerte_opreste.

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 implies when to use the tool by describing its effect (reactivating alerts or adding a missing company), but it does not compare it with alternatives such as alerte_opreste or radar_adauga. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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