anaf_nomenclator_strazi

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. Beyond that the description adds real value: diacritics-insensitive prefix matching, local caching per locality, and public accessibility. No return-format or rate-limit details, but for a cached read-only lookup this is solid.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity and return shape, followed by the filter semantics and caching note. Every clause carries information; no repetition of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description does supply the return shape (cod_strada + name), which matters. Required-vs-optional and the limit cap are left to the schema. For a simple read-only lookup it is complete enough to call 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?

At 75% schema coverage the schema documents judet and localitate; the description adds the crucial semantics of q (word-prefix, diacritics-insensitive, with an example) and ties localitate to the naming/caching behaviour. The limit parameter remains undocumented in both places, a minor gap.

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 resource (ANAF street nomenclator for a locality) with a concrete return shape (cod_strada + name) and an example value. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling nomenclator tools (anaf_nomenclator_judete, anaf_nomenclator_localitati), which cover county and locality levels.

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?

Explains that streets are cached per locality on first use and marked public, and describes the q filter's prefix/diacritics behaviour, which tells an agent how to use it efficiently. It does not explicitly state that localitate must come from anaf_nomenclator_localitati (the schema carries that), nor state when not to use it.

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