Dataroia Data Trust

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the cautious result marking ('à vérifier (homonyme)') and the paywall requirement, which go beyond the structured annotations. No contradictions found.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the main action immediately. It uses an efficient JSON-like notation for the person structure and includes only essential information (result marking, paywall). Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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?

The tool is moderately complex and has no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It only hints at the output by mentioning uncertain matches marked 'à vérifier (homonyme)', but does not describe the overall result format, success/error conditions, or rate limits. It adequately covers input structure but leaves gaps on output and edge behavior.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates significantly by detailing the inner structure of 'personnes' (nom, prenom, annee_naissance, date_naissance, code_postal, ref) with types and optionality. However, the 'api_key' parameter is not described beyond its requirement, and the outer array semantics are only implied by the person object definition.

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 uses a specific verb ('Croise') referring to a specific resource ('registre INSEE des décès') and object ('liste de contacts'), making its purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resoudre_siren and verifier_siret which target business identifiers rather than death records.

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 states a clear usage restriction ('Réservé aux plans payants (starter+)') and provides context (cross-referencing contacts against the death register). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the context is sufficient for basic selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent. The description additionally discloses privacy guarantees ('Aucun envoi à un tiers, aucun stockage') and an input limit (max 100 lines), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions with the readOnlyHint.

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, front-loaded with the main action and scope, followed by a privacy/limit note and a pointer to a fuller service. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant repetition of schema or annotations.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the diagnostic result looks like (e.g., report format, JSON structure, or summary). It covers input constraints and privacy but leaves the return value unspecified. For a simple single-parameter tool, this is a notable gap that could confuse an agent expecting a certain output type.

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 has one parameter 'csv_texte' with no description (0% coverage). The description implies that the parameter is the CSV content due to the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly define expected format, encoding, or delimiter. The mention of 'max 100 lignes, en-tête inclus' provides partial guidance, but the parameter itself remains somewhat ambiguous.

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 ('Diagnostic qualité') and resource ('extrait de fichier CRM/client au format CSV'), with clear scope (max 100 lines, header included). It enumerates the checks performed, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'verifier_siret' or 'resoudre_siren' that focus on individual entity lookup.

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 implies usage for CSV file quality analysis based on the purpose statement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools. The mention of a full diagnostic via an external URL hints at a free-limited mode but does not compare against alternatives within the same API.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral constraints beyond annotations: an API key is required, the free plan has access, and only one SIREN is processed per call. This is valuable operational context.

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: the first states the core function, the second states constraints. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the understanding of the tool.

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 adequately conveys purpose, inputs, key limitations, and hints at the output (vital status + score). It does not detail the full return structure, but for a simple retrieval tool with known inputs and constraints, it is sufficiently complete.

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 provides no descriptions for the two parameters. The description clarifies that 'sirens' is a list of SIREN numbers and that 'api_key' is required, and it adds the free-plan limitation of 1 SIREN per call. This adds some meaning, but it does not specify SIREN format or how multiple sirens are handled if only one is allowed per call.

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 retrieves active directors from RNE (INPI) for a list of SIRENs, cross-referenced with the INSEE death registry. It specifies the resource (directors) and the scope (list of SIRENs), and it implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like croiser_deces or resoudre_siren.

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 mentions the API key requirement and the free plan limit (1 SIREN per call), which provides usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when to prefer it over sibling tools, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only/idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: ignored legal forms and accents, homonym disambiguation via postal code, per-request response fields, the fiabilité scale, a safety warning about ambiguous SIRENs, and the fact that it is free without an API key. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, normalization behavior, disambiguation tip, input format, output format, safety guidance, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains readable without fluff.

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 sparse schema and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the exact request payload, response fields and reliability levels, the limitation to 10 companies, a critical user-facing guideline, and operational characteristics like cost and keyless access. No important usage aspect is missing for a tool of this complexity.

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 input schema is extremely sparse, offering only an array of objects with no per-field descriptions. The description fully compensates by specifying the expected object structure ({"nom": str, "code_postal": str?, "ref": str?}), the max batch size, and the per-company response fields, enabling correct invocation and response interpretation.

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 a specific action ('Retrouve le SIREN') and resource ('entreprises françaises'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like verifier_siret by focusing on resolving names from CRM data to SIREN identifiers, not verifying a provided SIRET.

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?

Provides concrete usage context: when you have company names as written in a CRM, when to include postal code for disambiguation, a batch limit of 10, and the lack of API key. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: the API key requirement and the one-SIREN-per-call limit. It also implies the tool cross-references multiple databases, which is useful transparency about its operation.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose (score, range, label, key identifier), then lists data sources compactly. The second sentence conveys the API key and call limit. Every word earns its place.

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 explains the primary return value (score 0-100, label A-D) and lists data sources, which is sufficient for understanding the tool's output. It also covers the critical constraint on calls. It could elaborate on the exact response structure, but for a read-only scoring tool this is reasonably complete.

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 explains that siren is the company identifier ("par SIREN") and that api_key is required ("Clé API requise"). Crucially, it disambiguates the array parameter by stating "1 SIREN par appel", preventing an agent from passing multiple SIRENs. It does not detail the exact string format, but the core meaning is clear.

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 immediately states a specific verb and resource: "Score santé consolidé (0-100, label A-D) par SIREN" – it produces a health score per SIREN. It lists distinct data sources (SIRENE, BODACC, INPI, Banque de France, RNE) which clearly differentiates it from siblings like dirigeants_entreprise or verifier_siret.

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 gives concrete usage constraints: "Clé API requise" and "1 SIREN par appel", telling the agent that an API key is mandatory and only one SIREN can be queried per call. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use the tool, 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.

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

Despite annotations already indicating non-read-only behavior, the description adds meaningful detail: setting marquer_lues=true acknowledges alerts so subsequent calls return only new ones. It also discloses the API key requirement, providing useful operational context beyond the schema.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and alert types, followed by the stateful behavior and auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

For a tool with no output schema and basic annotations, the description covers purpose, alert categories, stateful acknowledge behavior, and authentication. It lacks details about the return format and leaves non_lues_seulement under-explained, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 clearly explains marquer_lues and mentions the api_key requirement, but it does not explain non_lues_seulement, which is a parameter with a default true value and non-obvious semantics. Partial coverage earns a middle score.

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 identifies this as an alert-listing tool for a monitored portfolio, enumerating specific alert types (cessation SIRENE, BODACC, dirigeant changes). It positions itself as the 'what's new since my last visit' tool, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like resoudre_siren or verifier_siret.

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 strong usage context: use this to see new alerts rather than re-checking SIRENs individually. It also explains the stateful behavior of marquer_lues, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools for other use cases.

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

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

La description ajoute des comportements non couverts par les annotations : 'Le premier passage sur un SIREN établit une référence silencieuse ; les changements suivants deviennent des alertes', ce qui est crucial pour comprendre l'effet de l'action. Elle précise aussi que la limite est la taille du portefeuille et non un compteur d'appels, apportant une transparence utile.

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?

La description est concise, bien structurée et va à l'essentiel : d'abord l'objet, puis les actions, puis les détails comportementaux. Chaque phrase apporte une information utile sans redondance.

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?

Pour un outil de gestion de portefeuille à trois actions et trois paramètres, la description est complète. Elle couvre les actions, les conditions d'utilisation, les limites, et les nuances de comportement. L'absence de schéma de sortie n'est pas un manque, car elle n'est pas indiquée comme nécessaire.

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?

La description explique le rôle du paramètre 'action' avec les valeurs possibles et la condition sur 'sirens' (requis sauf pour lister). Elle confirme l'importance de l'api_key. Cela compense le fait que le schéma ne fournit pas de description pour ces paramètres, et ajoute une sémantique claire.

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?

La description indique clairement que l'outil gère le portefeuille de SIREN surveillés par Dataroia, avec une liste explicite des actions ('lister', 'ajouter', 'retirer'). Le verbe 'gère' est spécifique et le contexte (cessations, procédures collectives, etc.) distingue l'outil des frères comme surveillance_alertes.

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?

La description précise les conditions d'usage : 'sirens requis sauf lister', la nécessité de la clé API, et les limites par plan. Elle oriente vers l'outil frère surveillance_alertes pour les alertes, ce qui aide à choisir entre les outils. C'est un exemple clair de contexte d'utilisation.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: exact checks, local data source, conditional successor indication, and the free/no-API condition. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise: three sentences, each providing valuable information. It front-loads the action and object, lists checks efficiently, and includes the successor behavior and pricing without 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?

For a simple read-only verification tool with one parameter, the description is complete: it covers purpose, source, limit, checks, successor logic, and cost. Although no output schema exists, the expected result types (existence, closure, cessation, BODACC, successor) are described.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well by specifying the 14-digit format and the maximum of 10 SIRETs. It implies the array nature through 'jusqu'à 10 SIRET' but does not explicitly name the parameter or state it is an array.

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 identifies the action ('Vérifie'), the resource (SIRET numbers), the data source (local SIRENE INSEE base), and the exact checks performed (existence, closed establishment, ceased legal unit, BODACC collective procedure). This level of detail distinguishes it from siblings like resoudre_siren or dirigeants_entreprise.

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 gives clear usage context: batch size limit (up to 10 SIRET), local base, free and no API key. It implies when to use the tool (verifying SIRETs) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of the full 5.

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