dosare_registry_import

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and the description adds real business behavior on top: terminated contracts become closed dosare and expired ones without a termination filing are flagged for attention. It does not discuss what happens to contracts that already have an existingDosarId or how partial failures surface on a non-idempotent bulk write, so the disclosure is strong but not complete.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and the input source, then the downstream business rules. Dense but every clause carries domain information; the Romanian filing codes (C168 încetare) are legitimate domain vocabulary rather than padding.

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 non-idempotent bulk mutation with no output schema, the description says nothing about the response (created dosar ids vs. per-contract errors), retry safety, or maximum batch size. The core workflow is covered, but an agent cannot predict what it gets back or how to handle a re-run.

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 only 50% and the undocumented parameter is the required one (contracts, an untyped object array with no schema description); the description compensates by naming the exact source of those objects and the existingDosarId null heuristic. companyId is left to the schema, which is fine given it already documents the env-var override.

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?

"Create rental-contract dosare for registry contracts" gives a specific verb and a narrowly scoped resource, and it explicitly names dosare_registry_proposals as the input source, which separates it from the generic dosare_create sibling.

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 tells the agent exactly what to pass (contract objects from dosare_registry_proposals, typically the ones with existingDosarId null) and what to do for flagged cases (file C168 încetare or an addendum), which effectively routes to dosare_c168_create. It never states when not to use this versus dosare_create for manual dosar creation, so the bar for a 5 isn't met.

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