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

Annotations already declare the write, non-destructive, idempotent profile; the description adds real behavior beyond them: an ambiguous denumire adds nothing and returns candidates, and a repeat call for the same CUI returns the existing entry rather than erroring. Missing are any permission/quota or 'what monitoring costs you' notes, and it never confirms the write is reversible (radar_elimina exists but is not cross-referenced).

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?

Four front-loaded sentences covering purpose, name-resolution semantics, source list, and idempotent re-call; nothing is filler. The long parenthetical source list is bulky but is the tool's only documentation of allowed values, so it earns its place.

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 does the work of explaining return behavior for both the ambiguous-name and duplicate-CUI cases, and it fully covers all three optional parameters. What remains unsaid is the shape of a successful response (entry id, confirmed sources) and any prerequisites such as the firm needing to exist in the registry.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description enumerates the accepted surse tokens (bpi, dosare, onrc, monitorul_oficial, ...) that the schema does not list as an enum — a genuine value add for a free-form comma-separated string. It also restates the preference for cui over denumire, which the schema only hints at via '(preferat)'.

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 and resource ('Adauga o firma in Radar') plus the effect (monitorizare cu alerte), and the two accepted lookup keys. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings radar_lista and radar_elimina without needing their schemas.

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?

Gives clear selection logic between the two input modes — CUI is 'preferat', denumire is for when 'nu stii CUI-ul' — and explains what happens with an ambiguous name. It does not explicitly route the agent away from cauta_firma when the goal is only to look up a company, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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