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

With no annotations, the description provides basic behavioral info: it is a search tool that returns specific fields and costs credits. It does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence followed by a cost note. It is front-loaded with essential information, no fluff, and every piece contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description tells what is returned and the cost, but lacks details on number of results, pagination, or sorting. For a simple search tool, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The schema already has 100% coverage, but the description adds context: query is a 'company name fragment' (not exact match), and api_key is a DACIX key obtained via store_register. This aids correct parameter usage 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?

The description states the verb 'Search', the resource 'Romanian companies', and specifies that it searches by name. It lists the returned information (CUI, legal form, county, active/struck-off) and the cost (10 credits). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ro_company_lookup or ro_company_financials.

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 description implies usage by saying 'Search Romanian companies by name', which suggests when to use it (when you have a company name fragment). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for different search criteria (e.g., by CUI or address).

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