dosare_stats

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it is a cross-contract aggregation that also joins D212 declaration data and declaration status, which tells the agent this is a derived, multi-source read rather than a simple record fetch. It omits any note on cost/latency or result size for what is clearly a heavy aggregate.

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 definition is front-loaded with the resource and then enumerates returned sections, with the human-facing question placed last as a retrieval cue. It is dense but every clause maps to real returned data; the semicolon chain is slightly hard to scan but no sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so section by section (portfolio, active contracts, expiring contracts, rent by currency, expected vs declared per year). Combined with a fully documented two-parameter schema and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly and anticipate the response shape.

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 parameters (companyId override of STORNO_COMPANY_ID, csvOutFile CSV destination) are already documented in the schema. The description only indirectly touches companyId via "of the company" and never references the CSV output mode. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 names a specific resource (the company's rental portfolio statistics) and enumerates exactly what the aggregate contains: per-property tenant/rent/period/state, active contracts, contracts expiring in 60 days, rent by currency, and expected-vs-declared rent per income year. That is far more specific than a title restatement. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings such as dosare_list or dosare_annual_return, so an agent must infer that this is the aggregated/derived view.

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?

The closing question ("how much rent did I collect and declare last year?") implicitly frames the intended use as annual rent-vs-D212 reconciliation. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of dosare_list/dosare_annual_return/dashboard_stats, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., contracts must exist, D212s must be filed) to get meaningful output.

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