dosare_billing

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/closed-world profile, so the description's added value lies elsewhere and it delivers: it explains the matching rule (tenant CUI/CNP looked up across clients and suppliers) and that the compensation balance appears only when the dosar records an investment clause. It does not touch on volume or response shape, but the conditional-inclusion disclosure is real behavioral context.

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?

One dense sentence enumerating the returned blocks plus one short sentence of user-facing intent. Every clause maps to a distinct content section, and the core subject is front-loaded, though the nested parenthetical list is heavier than strictly necessary.

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 and only two input params, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so by enumerating the included sections and the overdue-state semantics. What remains unspecified is the response structure/format, a minor gap for an aggregation tool.

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 100% — both `id` (rental-contract dosar id) and `companyId` (company override) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

It states precisely what the tool returns for a rental dosar: recurring invoice, issued invoices with paid/partial/unpaid/overdue state, per-currency totals, received invoices, and a conditional compensation balance. This is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like dosare_get or dosare_stats, though no sibling is named to make the boundary explicit.

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 questions ("did the tenant pay?", "how much rent is outstanding?") imply when to reach for this tool, which is useful routing. However, it never states explicitly that this is the billing view versus dosare_get/dosare_stats, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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