clients_from_registry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: ANAF lookup, auto-filling details, and creating a client. However, it does not mention failure behavior, network dependency, or what happens if the ANAF lookup returns no data, which would be valuable for a mutation tool.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The action and data source are front-loaded, and the routing guidance is compactly placed in the second sentence.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, the main alternative, and the key input. Given there is no output schema, an explicit statement of the return value or failure behavior would make it fully complete, but the core selection and invocation context is well covered.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that cui is the lookup key and that details are auto-filled, but it adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond 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?

The description states a specific action (create a client), the data source (ANAF registry), and the auto-fill behavior. It also names clients_create as the alternative, so an agent can distinguish this tool from its closest sibling without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly says to use this instead of clients_create when the agent only has a CUI and wants company details resolved automatically. That gives a clear decision rule and names the alternative, leaving little to inference.

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