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

Annotation already covers read-only safety, but the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact: it consumes the subscription's daily company budget, warning the agent of a cost/quota side effect. It stops short of describing return shape or pagination, but the cost disclosure is meaningful context beyond the annotation.

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?

A single dense sentence, but purpose and payload are front-loaded and every clause enumerates a distinct returned section. Slightly heavy but efficient with no redundant filler.

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 usefully enumerates the sections the profile returns and notes the quota cost. This covers what an agent needs to decide and call it, though it could be richer on the response structure or failure modes.

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% and the single cui parameter is already fully documented ('doar cifre'). The description adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Profilul unei firme dupa CUI') and enumerates exactly what the profile contains (ONRC/ANAF status, arrears, insolvency filing, risk score, early signals, BPI count). This clearly distinguishes it from search-oriented siblings like cauta_firma or the BPI-publication tools.

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?

Keying on CUI implies the caller must already know the company's tax ID, which implicitly routes away from search tools. However, no sibling (e.g. cauta_firma) is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance is given, so usage is only implied.

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