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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose genuinely useful non-schema facts: it is an orchestrated multi-source aggregation, it returns a decision with a confidence score, and it costs $0.10 USDC per call via x402. It says nothing about latency, rate limits, caching, failure modes, or what happens when a source is unavailable — significant gaps for a paid, multi-source call with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three tight clauses: what it does and which sources, when to run it, and what it costs. The purpose and the data sources are front-loaded, and every clause carries information an agent needs; 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?

With no output schema, the description sensibly summarizes the return as a pay/verify/do-not-pay decision with a confidence score, and it discloses the payment requirement and cost. Parameters are fully covered by the schema. The remaining gap is operational behavior (timing, partial-source failure) which is not addressed.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters (nom, site, siren, langue). The description adds no parameter-level meaning such as which identifiers are mutually exclusive or how 'langue' affects the verdict, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Supplier due-diligence mission') and enumerates the concrete data sources it orchestrates (French registry, AMF, ESMA MiCA, EU/UN/OFAC), plus the shape of the result (pay/verify/do-not-pay with confidence score). It is clear on what it does, but it never names or distinguishes itself from close siblings like agora_counterparty_check or agora_pay_guard, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Run it before paying a supplier or platform' gives an explicit trigger condition, which is real usage context. However, it offers no when-not guidance and does not point to the alternative siblings (counterparty_check, pay_guard) that overlap in intent, leaving the agent to guess which of the several checks to call.

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