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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: that deletion is permanent ('definitiv'), that the alert history is destroyed too, and that omitting confirm produces a non-destructive dry-run listing what would be deleted. The confirm-gated two-step flow is precisely the behavioral detail an agent needs before an irreversible mutation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action, then the confirm semantics, then the alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the return behavior (it returns what would be deleted when confirm is absent), covers the destructive scope, and routes to the alternative tool. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by describing the actual effect of omitting confirm (returns the would-be-deleted set) rather than just the parameter's type. The cui parameter's meaning is carried entirely by the schema, so it is not a full 5.

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: definitively deletes a company from Radar together with its alert history. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling alerte_opreste by naming that tool explicitly for the alert-only case, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening 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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('Pentru a opri doar alertele foloseste alerte_opreste') and specifies the condition that governs the correct invocation, namely that confirm=true only after explicit user confirmation, while calling without it is a preview. Both the when and the when-not are present.

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