dosare_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: the exact buckets returned and the concrete thresholds (deadlines within 14 days, contracts expiring within 60 days, receipts from the last 14 days). It does not state whether results are counts or full records, nor any pagination/size limits, which leaves a gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a compact inline enumeration of the three buckets, then the trigger phrase last. The parenthetical lists are dense but each item carries decision-relevant information about what qualifies as an action.

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 correctly takes on the burden of describing the return shape via bucket names and contents, and the time thresholds make the inclusion criteria unambiguous. What is missing is the response structure (counts vs. items, ordering, truncation) — minor but relevant for an agent deciding whether to call it first.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which already documents companyId as a UUID overriding the env var. The description never mentions the parameter or what happens when it is omitted (all companies vs. env-configured company), so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 (all dosare) and an aggregation purpose (what needs the user's attention), then names the three returned buckets with their contents. An agent can tell this is a cross-dosare triage view rather than a list/get tool like dosare_list or dosare_get without opening either schema.

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 closing sentence 'Start here when the user asks "what do I have to do?"' gives an explicit trigger with a concrete user utterance. It does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer dosare_list or dosare_stats instead), so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing rule.

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