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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly covers response structure (root vs unite_legale), plan-dependent field availability, the caveat that absent fields may be out-of-plan, and the semantics of opposition_prospection including the distinction between null and false. This is exemplary transparency for a data retrieval tool.

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 relatively long but information-dense. It is logically structured: identifier usage, response layout, plan tiers, field absence semantics, and a privacy flag caveat. Every sentence adds value, though a bit more concision could improve scannability.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what the response contains, how it varies by plan, how to interpret absent fields, and where special data (opposition_prospection) is served. It successfully covers all key contextual aspects for a tool with a single parameter and no structured output metadata.

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 only provides company_id as a string with 0% description coverage. The description compensates completely by explaining that the same identifier accepts either a 14-digit SIRET (returns that establishment) or a 9-digit SIREN (returns the headquarters), adding precise meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides a detailed record of a French company or establishment (SIRENE base). It goes beyond a simple identifier by explaining the dual SIRET/SIREN usage, and its focus on retrieving detailed records distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_company.

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 description clearly implies when to use the tool: when you have a SIRET or SIREN identifier. It also explains the plan-level constraints and the meaning of the input. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., use search_company if you lack an identifier), so it falls short of a 5.

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