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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility and excels: it discloses that results are always SIRET, explains grouping behavior, warns about 'classement_pertinence' affecting best match, clarifies that 'diffusible: false' is legal masking not missing data, and specifies plan restrictions. No contradictions.

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 packed with useful information in a single paragraph, but lacks visual structure (e.g., bullet points). However, every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but overall effective.

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?

Given the complexity (13 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers essential behavioral aspects and usage nuances. It explains the establishment-vs-company subtlety, result ordering, data masking, and plan requirements. It does not describe the response format, which would be helpful given no output schema, but remains fairly complete for the tool's intended use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists and explains many parameters (query, siren, city, postal_code, naf_code, lat/lon/radius_m, group_by_company) and their effects on behavior. However, it does not systematically cover all 13 parameters (e.g., page, per_page, status, address are not explicitly described), leaving some gaps.

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 verb 'Recherche' and resource 'entreprises et établissements français dans la base SIRENE', listing multiple search criteria. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_company_details by mentioning it as the next step, and implicitly differentiates from other search tools by focusing on company data.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance, including that results are always establishments, how grouping works, interpretation of 'classement_pertinence', handling of 'diffusible: false', the authority of empty lists, and plan requirements for proximity search. It directs to use get_company_details for more details.

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