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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully discloses that results span two sources (BPI-published and registry-only firms), but omits pagination behavior, result ordering, or what happens when no match is found.

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, front-loaded with the action and search keys, followed by return contents and routing advice. No filler, though the return-field list is somewhat dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields, and for a simple two-parameter read tool that is largely sufficient. Minor gaps remain around result limits/ordering, but nothing essential to invoking it 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%, so both 'q' and 'limita' are already documented in the schema. The description restates the q semantics ('denumire sau CUI') but adds nothing about limita or input format beyond what the schema provides — baseline 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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('Cauta o firma dupa denumire sau CUI') and enumerates exactly what is returned (CUI, judet, stare, numar de publicatii). It also distinguishes its scope from registry-only siblings by noting both BPI-published and registry-only companies are covered.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger (search by name or CUI) and routes the agent onward: 'Foloseste CUI-ul returnat in celelalte unelte.' It does not name a specific alternative tool or a when-not condition, but the usage context is clear.

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