companies_create

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 that CIF validation happens automatically and that official data is retrieved, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't state what happens on validation failure, whether creation is idempotent, or whether this is a required first step before other company operations. For a creation tool this is decent but not rich.

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 sentences, no filler. Each sentence adds distinct information: what the tool does and the CIF format flexibility. Well front-loaded with the primary action in the first clause.

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 single-parameter creation tool with complete schema coverage, the description covers the core behavior adequately. It explains the external integration (ANAF), the data pulled, and format flexibility. Minor gaps: no mention of output/return shape after creation, and no statement about validation failure behavior, but these are inferable for a create operation given the described flow.

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 description coverage is 100% — the single 'cif' parameter is already documented precisely with an example. The description adds value by explaining how the CIF is used (validation + retrieval) and that the RO prefix is optional, which complements the schema's example rather than merely repeating it. The description also clarifies the tool-level behavior tied to this parameter.

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 verb+resource ('Create a new company') and adds valuable scoping detail: it validates the CIF with ANAF and retrieves official registration data. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like companies_update and companies_upload_logo.

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 explains the behavior triggered on creation (ANAF validation, official data retrieval), giving the agent context for what to expect. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this, but the distinct creation purpose is clear among sibling companies_* operations.

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