anaf_nomenclator_strazi

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

Discloses non-obvious behavior: diacritics-insensitive matching, prefix-based filtering, local caching per locality, and public access. No annotations exist, so this is valuable context. It doesn't mention error handling or edge cases, but the given information is honest and useful.

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 two sentences long and packs high-value information without redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds filter behavior and caching details, making it easy to scan.

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?

Mentions the output format (cod_strada + name) and important behaviors (prefix filtering, diacritics-insensitive, caching, public). No output schema exists, so it appropriately avoids return-value details. It leaves out pagination/limit behavior, but given the simplicity of the tool, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call 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?

Adds meaning to the q parameter by explaining the prefix-matching rule and diacritics-insensitivity, which the schema only calls 'Street name filter'. The judet and localitate parameters are already well described in the schema, so little extra is needed. The limit parameter lacks schema description and the description does not address it, but it is an optional parameter with clear min/max in the 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?

Clearly states it is an ANAF street nomenclator for a locality, and gives an example of the output format (cod_strada + name). It is distinct from sibling tools like anaf_nomenclator_judete and anaf_nomenclator_localitati by focusing on streets, so an agent can easily understand its purpose.

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?

Provides practical usage details: the q parameter filters by word prefix and is diacritics-insensitive, with a concrete example. It also mentions caching behavior and that the endpoint is public. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling nomenclator tools, but the locality-focused description makes the intended use clear.

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