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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the exact result contents (notification, deadline, days remaining) and the negative behavior (no drafting, no invoice requests). It does not say what happens for a firm not in insolvency, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the scope and returned fields come first, the exclusion and alternative second. Every clause 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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it, including what the response contains. Only the non-insolvency / not-found path is unaddressed.

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?

Single parameter 'cui' is already documented at 100% schema coverage, so the schema carries the semantics. The description implies the firm identity is the lookup key but adds no format, validation, or accepted-variant guidance beyond the schema.

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 resource (an insolvency company) and precisely enumerates what the call returns: the opening notification, the creditors-list filing deadline, and days remaining. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from declaration generation, so an agent knows this is a deadline lookup, not a document builder.

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 scopes usage to 'o firma intrata in insolventa', states what the tool does NOT do ('Nu redacteaza declaratia si nu cere facturi'), and redirects generation to DateBPI, fila Declaratie de creanta. When-to-use, when-not, and alternative are all present.

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