companies_create

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: for companies, ANAF supplies name, address, and VAT status; for individuals, nothing is fetched from ANAF and the CNP is checked (13 digits, control digit). It also includes a strong warning 'Never invent a CNP.' Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does a good job explaining what happens during creation and what validations occur.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a compact format with clear sections for company and individual cases. The warning 'Never invent a CNP' is a valuable addition. It's slightly dense but every sentence earns its place, covering both entity types, data sources, and validation rules without unnecessary fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, two distinct entity types, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what data is required for each type, what happens during creation (ANAF fetch vs CNP validation), and the critical warning about not inventing CNPs. It doesn't explain return values, but with no output schema and the focus on creation behavior, the description is reasonably complete for an agent to 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?

Schema coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the relationship between CIF and ANAF data fetching, clarifies that CNP is validated (13 digits, control digit), and specifies that city/county are required for individuals. It also clarifies the 'type' parameter's role in selecting between company and individual paths. This adds value beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 adds a company or an individual person to the organization, with distinct verbs and resources. It distinguishes between the two entity types and their required identifiers (CIF vs CNP), making it easy to understand what the tool does and how it differs from sibling tools like companies_update or companies_list.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to add a company or individual person. It explains the two usage paths (company with CIF, individual with CNP) and gives explicit guidance on what data is needed for each. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like companies_update for modifying existing entities, though the context is strong enough to infer the distinction.

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