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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuinely useful behavior: it draws down the subscription's daily company quota, same as the web UI, and notes that the insolvency filing is returned only 'daca exista'. It does not say what happens on an unknown CUI or whether results are cached/fresh.

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, front-loaded with the payload inventory, with the cost caveat second — exactly the right order. The payload list is dense but each item carries information an agent needs to decide if this tool answers the question.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return value — and it does so item by item, including a conditional field and the quota cost. For a single-parameter, closed-world read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and anticipate the cost.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself stating 'CUI-ul firmei, doar cifre'. The description confirms the lookup key is the CUI but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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 resource and key (the company profile by CUI) and enumerates exactly what the profile contains: ONRC/ANAF status, arrears, insolvency filing, risk score and factors, early warning signals, BPI publication count. That enumeration distinguishes it from siblings like cauta_firma (search) or publicatii_bpi (single data slice), though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 only implied: the breadth of the payload and the note that it consumes the daily company budget signal this is the heavyweight composite lookup, not a cheap search. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. cauta_firma for lookup-only, dosare_instanta for court detail) is given.

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