run_ro_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the cost ('15 point per returned record') and the data fields returned, but says nothing about failure/not-found behavior, auth needs, or rate limits for a live registry 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the action and resource before the long field list. The field enumeration is dense but earns its place by standing in for the missing output schema; minor bloat from the trailing '...'.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields and stating the credit cost. It leaves error/not-found behavior unaddressed, which keeps it short of full completeness.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already gives the CUI example (2816464). The description's restatement of CUI (CIF) adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 and resource (get one company) scoped to the Romania registry and keyed by CUI (CIF), then enumerates the returned fields. It implicitly distinguishes itself from run_ro_companies_search by being a single-record identifier lookup, but never names the sibling explicitly.

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 identifier requirement ('by CUI (CIF)') implies usage when a company ID is already known, but the description never states when to prefer this over run_ro_companies_search or what to do without a CUI. Guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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