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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description goes further by naming exactly what is destroyed (the company plus its alert history) and that the deletion is definitive. It also discloses the dry-run behavior and the human-confirmation requirement, which annotations cannot express.

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 and its scope, then the confirmation protocol, then the alternative. Nothing extraneous.

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 only two parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the remaining essentials: what gets destroyed, what a non-confirmed call returns, and which sibling to use instead. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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 real meaning for 'confirm': without it the call is a non-destructive preview that also solicits user confirmation. The 'cui' parameter is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 ('Sterge definitiv o firma din Radar') plus the scope of the deletion ('cu istoricul ei de alerte'), which distinguishes it from alert-only tools. An agent can tell it apart from alerte_opreste and radar_lista without opening the schema.

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 for the adjacent use case ('Pentru a opri doar alertele foloseste alerte_opreste') and states the workflow gate: without confirm=true it returns a preview and asks the user for confirmation. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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