dosare_registry_proposals

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It explains that it reads the newest extract or a PDF, but it is ambiguous whether the tool itself performs the import or merely suggests it. It doesn't clarify side effects (read-only vs. mutating), output format, or what happens after matching, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's actual behavior.

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 dense sentence that packs in multiple ideas: source, states, matching, and follow-up. It is not excessively long but is tangled and would benefit from clearer sentence breaks. It front-loads the purpose but mixes procedural details, reducing 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what it returns and any side effects. It doesn't describe the proposal format, the matching logic, or whether it triggers import automatically. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to know what to expect and how to proceed.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, but the description adds meaningful context: pdfPath is for manually downloaded extracts, and it clarifies the default source (newest SPV inbox extract). This reinforces the parameter purposes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: listing contracts from ANAF's registry extract, matching them to existing dosare, and flagging those without a dosar for import. It differentiates itself from the sibling dosare_registry_import by being the proposal step, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 specifies the prerequisite of obtaining the extract via spv_request_prepare type C168 and names the follow-up action (dosare_registry_import). While it doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, the context is clear and it points to the correct sibling for the next step.

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