dosare_registry_proposals

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: it reads the newest extract from the SPV inbox by default or the PDF at pdfPath, and only proposes rather than creating dosare. It does not say how many proposals it returns or what happens to already-matched contracts.

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 dense but every clause supports a decision: source, prerequisite, output semantics, and next step. The nested parentheticals and quotes make it harder to parse than necessary, but there is no filler.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with annotations covering its safety profile, the description is complete enough to call it. Without an output schema, it would ideally say more about the returned proposal structure, but it conveys the essential matched-to-dosare result.

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%, so both pdfPath and companyId are documented in the schema. The description reinforces pdfPath as the manual-download alternative, but adds no syntax or precedence detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource (contracts from ANAF's C168 registry extract) and what it produces (each contract's state after all filings, matched to existing dosare). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling dosare_registry_import by positioning itself as the step that runs first.

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 explains the upstream prerequisite (request the extract via spv_request_prepare type C168) and explicitly routes records without a dosar to dosare_registry_import. The chain is clear, though there is no explicit statement of when not to use it, for example if an extract is already processed.

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