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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: results span the user AND their team, the per-company alert window is 30 days, and pages are capped at 50 items. It stops short of stating sort order or how to enumerate all pages.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the resource, then the returned fields, then the filter, then the page cap, with no filler. The field enumeration runs long but every item is information the agent would otherwise have to guess (there is no output schema).

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the per-company fields, the team-wide scope, and the 50-item page limit; two optional params and a read-only annotation set mean nothing else is needed to call it correctly.

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 50%: 'filtru' is documented in the schema and the description largely repeats its accepted values, while 'pagina' has no schema description. The phrase 'Maxim 50 pe pagina' partially compensates by telling the agent the page size, but nothing explains numbering or total-page behavior, so it is baseline-level.

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?

Enumerates a specific resource (firmele din Radarul utilizatorului/echipei) and the exact fields returned (CUI, denumire, stare alerte, surse, vechime, numar alerte 30 zile, banda semnale timpurii). An agent can tell it is the read/list counterpart of radar_adauga and radar_elimina, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The optional filter is described ('activ', 'inactiv', sau fragment din denumire/CUI), which implies when to narrow the listing, but the description never states when to use this tool instead of cauta_firma or profil_firma, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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