anaf_company_lookup

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses null-return behavior for unknown CUIs, the date default, and the detailed set of returned statuses and flags. It could add rate-limit or error behavior, but nothing critical is hidden for a simple keyed lookup.

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 compact block that front-loads the main action and resource before layering in behavioral details. Every clause earns its place: scope, date semantics, return fields, null behavior, and authentication.

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 two-parameter single-lookup tool, the description covers input semantics, defaults, output content, not-found behavior, and auth, and an output schema exists to specify the exact return structure. Nothing essential to invoking this tool correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters, and it does thoroughly: CUI is explained as Romania's tax/registration number, and as_of is given a YYYY-MM-DD format with a default of today. This adds real meaning beyond the bare integer/string 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 opening sentence names a specific action ('look up'), a specific resource ('a single Romanian company by CUI'), and a specific authoritative source (ANAF). The word 'single' also distinguishes this tool from the sibling anaf_company_lookup_batch, and the return-field list removes ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear context: it is for one company identified by CUI, with an optional as_of date and no API key required. However, it never explicitly names the batch sibling or states a when-not condition, so routing to the batch variant is left mostly to inference.

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