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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Search' implies a read-only, non-destructive lookup, but the description says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, whether an empty result set is normal, or what a returned notice contains. Schema fields hint at paging and filtering, but behavioral traits are undisclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no repetition of schema detail. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 7-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum characterize the returned objects and note that results are paginated and filterable. The Romanian term helps domain recognition but does not fill the gaps an agent needs to invoke and interpret the tool confidently.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself explains state aliases ('issued' = open+closed), date formats (YYYY-MM-DD), partial matching on client_name, and per_page limits. The description adds nothing beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Search') and a distinct resource ('delivery notices / avize de expediție'), which separates it from the many search_invoices/search_orders/search_supplier_* siblings by domain object. It does not, however, clarify the relationship to adjacent document tools like get_supplier_document or explain that it returns a paginated list rather than a single notice.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives — nothing says whether delivery notices are a subset of invoices, how they relate to supplier documents, or what conditions select this over get_document_pdf. The agent must infer usage entirely from the resource name.

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