anaf_nomenclator_localitati

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Public, local mirror,' which hints at a read-only, cached source, but does not explicitly state side effects, rate limits, or query behavior. This is moderate transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the primary purpose first, then details the output, then the optional filter, and finally a note about the public mirror. Each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (locality codes) and the context of use (declaration XSDs). It does not specify the exact response format or whether multiple entries are returned, but that is not critical for a nomenclator lookup tool and the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 provides basic descriptions for 'judet' and 'q', but the tool description significantly enriches them: it explains the meaning of returned codes (cod_localit, SIRUTA, town-hall), provides concrete examples for 'q' ('sector 6', 'cluj'), and notes diacritics-insensitive matching. This goes well beyond the schema's coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'ANAF locality nomenclator for a county' and specifies the output codes (cod_localit, SIRUTA, town-hall) along with the context that they are required by declaration XSDs. It is distinct from sibling tools like anaf_nomenclator_judete and anaf_nomenclator_strazi by focusing on localities.

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 the use case (retrieving locality codes for declarations) and explains the optional 'q' filter. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative nomenclator tools or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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