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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them – the subscription requirement, which is a real call-blocking constraint, and the shape of returned records (number, court, subject, stage, last ruling, next hearing, party role). It does not mention pagination limits, result caps, or rate behavior, which are left to the schema or omitted.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first front-loads what can be searched and how to filter, the second states the return fields and the subscription prerequisite. The enumeration is dense but not padded; nothing is repeated.

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 13-parameter, zero-required, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers search modes, filter dimensions, return fields, and an access prerequisite – enough for an agent to call it correctly. The main omission is guidance on how filters interact with the free-text query and what an empty result implies.

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%, so every one of the 13 parameters is already documented with examples and defaults. The description only restates the same categories (materie, stadiu, judet, instanta, insolventa, calitate, date interval) without adding syntax, interaction rules such as how q and ce combine, or guidance on combining multiple filters – the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Cauta dosare in instanta') and enumerates every search axis: CUI, party name, docket number with a concrete example, and free-text in the subject or ruling. It is not explicit about how it differs from the singular sibling dosar_instanta, so an agent must infer plural-search vs. single-case lookup from the names alone.

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?

It clearly states the conditions under which the tool is used (searching a portfolio of cases by identifier, party, text, or filters) and surfaces a hard prerequisite: 'Cere un abonament care include Dosare Instanta.' It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, e.g. when to prefer dosar_instanta for a known docket number.

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