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

Annotations only carry idempotentHint; the description concretely reinforces it ('a second call for the same CUI returns the existing entry') and adds a non-obvious behavior — an ambiguous name is a no-op that returns candidates. This is real value beyond the annotation, though it does not cover auth or full return shape.

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 tightly packed sentences that front-load purpose before the ambiguity rule and the surse default. Dense but every clause carries information; no 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?

No output schema, yet the description explains the two meaningful outcomes (candidate list on ambiguity, existing entry on repeat) and the source default. Useful enough for an agent to invoke correctly, with only permission/response-detail gaps remaining.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning not in the schema: CUI is preferred over denumire, the full enumerated set of valid surse values is inlined in the description (the schema itself does not enumerate them), and omit = all sources.

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 (adauga) and resource (o firma in Radar / monitorizare cu alerte), and the two input modes (CUI sau denumire). It is clearly distinguishable from radar_elimina and radar_lista by naming the add-and-monitor semantics.

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?

Explains when a name resolves to CUI-based monitoring, what happens when it is ambiguous (nothing added, candidates returned), and that omitting surse means all sources. It stops short of explicitly routing to sibling tools like radar_lista or cauta_firma, but the selection context is otherwise clear.

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