dosare_create

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent create operation. The description adds useful derived-field behavior (title and 30-day C168 deadline) and required rental subject fields, but it does not disclose validation, side effects, permissions, or what is returned.

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, and the field guidance is dense but largely information-bearing. The long subject-object clause is somewhat hard to scan, but there is little wasted text.

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 9-parameter create tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description supplies the most important type-specific field guidance and the annual-return alternative. It still has gaps around the status parameter, all enum type values, and the response behavior.

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 low at 22%, so the description must compensate. It does this well for the nested subject object by naming and explaining many rental-contract fields, and it maps title, deadlineAt, deadlineLabel, nextStep, and notes to other types; status and the full type enum remain unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a dosar') and distinguishes the rental-contract path from the annual-return sibling. However, 'dosar' is not defined and the other type values are only loosely addressed.

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 routes yearly Declarația unică to dosare_annual_return instead and explains what to pass for rental_contract. It does not clarify when to use the C168 or D212 sibling tools, even though C168 is referenced.

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