run_ro_companies_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses the default county scope, the all-words-must-match behavior, and a cost signal ('1 point per returned record'). It omits pagination behavior, rate limits, and auth requirements, which leaves meaningful gaps for a registry query.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the county default and syntax, then matching semantics and cost. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers purpose, default scope, query syntax, matching rules, and cost. Only pagination/return-format guidance is absent, which is minor given start_page and max_items are documented in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value beyond the schema: it explains the '@ county' syntax in detail (county name or code), states the Bucharest default, and clarifies that all words must appear in the name. The schema's keyword description is far terser ('optionally @ county').

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), a precise resource (Romania company registry), and even the underlying data source (Ministry of Finance / ONRC). An agent immediately knows this is the Romanian company lookup, distinguishable from the many other country registries and the generic run_search.

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?

Gives actionable usage detail for the county dimension (Bucharest by default, add '@ cluj' for another county) and matching semantics (all words must appear). However, it never states when to use this versus the sibling run_ro_companies (the non-search lookup) or when-not to use it, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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