dosare_d212_prefill

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses the calculation logic (gross rent = monthly rent × months for RON contracts) and the foreign-currency behavior (returns 0 with a note). However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if it has side effects, which is a notable gap given the absence of annotations.

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 a single sentence that packs essential details—source, calculation, foreign-currency note, and next step—without fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and is appropriately concise, though it could be broken into clearer segments for improved readability.

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 prefill operation with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to understand the tool's function and its role in the workflow. It covers the main calculation and a special case, though it does not explicitly describe the return structure (beyond implying prefilled fields), which an agent might need to infer.

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?

Both parameters (id and companyId) are fully described in the input schema (id as 'Declarația unică dosar id', companyId as an override). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (prefill) on a specific resource (D212 rent-scenario input) derived from the rental-contract dosare, and clearly distinguishes it from the subsequent dosare_d212_create step and other prefill tools like c168_prefill. The verb 'prefill' and resource are unambiguous, making its role in the workflow clear.

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?

Explicitly directs the user to 'Review it with the user, then dosare_d212_create', establishing a clear sequence and when to use this tool (before creation). It also notes the special handling for foreign-currency rents (returns 0 with a note to convert at BNR rates), which is a practical edge case. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative prefill tools, but the naming and workflow make the intended usage obvious.

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