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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds '10 credits' (a cost behavior) but does not mention any other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (though api_key parameter exists in schema), rate limits, or what happens if no companies are found. The description is insufficient for a tool without 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. The parenthetical adds context without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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, the description does not explain return values. It covers the basic purpose but omits details about optional parameter interactions (e.g., how strada and numar work together) and the output format. The tool has 4 parameters, so more contextual explanation would be beneficial.

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%, with all parameters having descriptions (e.g., 'City, e.g. cluj', 'Street number (optional)'). The tool description adds '10 credits' but no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the action ('find') and the specific resource ('every Romanian company registered at an address'), with a parenthetical clarifying the use case ('due diligence: who is registered here?'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ro_company_search' (likely by other criteria) and 'ro_company_lookup' (by ID).

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 for due diligence at a specific address, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternative tools (e.g., ro_company_search for other search criteria). No exclusionary guidance is provided.

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