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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it names the aggregated data sources, the merged decision output, the confidence score, the exact price, and the x402 payment mechanism. It does not disclose read-only status, freshness or latency characteristics, or error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose before listing sources and the price. The first sentence is dense but every clause contributes relevant information, and 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it does: a merged pay/verify/do-not-pay decision with confidence score. Combined with the price and payment protocol, this is enough for an agent to decide to invoke it, though wallet setup and failure modes remain unspecified.

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 clearly. The description adds no parameter-level semantics such as format expectations for 'siren' or 'site', which is acceptable but unremarkable; 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 and resource: an orchestrated supplier due-diligence mission that merges French registry, AMF, ESMA MiCA, and sanctions data into a pay/verify/do-not-pay decision with a confidence score. It does not explicitly name or contrast itself with the closest sibling, agora_counterparty_check, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Run it before paying a supplier or platform.' That is a direct when-to-use trigger and goes beyond mere implication. However, it provides no when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternatives among the sibling tools.

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