dosare_d212_prefill

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: how gross rent is derived (monthly rent × months for RON contracts) and the important caveat that foreign-currency rents return 0 with a conversion note. Minor gaps remain around missing-contract cases and the exact returned shape.

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 plus a short imperative, with the core action front-loaded and the calculation rule and edge case packed in without filler. The parenthetical is heavy but every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does: contract, period within the year, gross rent value, and the 0-with-note behavior for foreign currency. Only the handling of missing data (no contract in year) is left unexplained.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (id, companyId) are documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description implies the dosar id selects the income year but adds no syntax or override detail beyond the schema.

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 verb (prefill) plus the exact resource (D212 rent-scenario input) and its data source (the rental-contract dosare tied to a Declarația unică dosar's income year). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling dosare_d212_create, which it names as the follow-up step.

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 sequences the workflow: review the prefill with the user, then call dosare_d212_create. It does not state a when-not condition (e.g., what to do if no rental contract exists in the year), but the intended context is clear.

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