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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the API-key requirement, free-plan access, and the 5-SIREN-per-call limit. This does not contradict the read-only or idempotent hints.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that opens with the output and then lists relevant sources and constraints. The semicolon-separated source list is dense, but each element contributes meaningful context 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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys the core return concept (score 0-100, label A-D) and covers auth, quota, and input scope, which is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool. Minor gaps remain around output structure and handling of invalid or missing SIRENs, but they are not blocking for invocation.

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 for the sparse schema. It clarifies that sirens are SIREN identifiers, that an API key is required, and that calls are limited to 5 SIRENs. However, it does not specify SIREN format, array constraints, or key handling beyond the schema property names.

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 computes a consolidated health score (0-100, label A-D) per SIREN and enumerates the data sources, making its purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like dirigeants_entreprise or diagnostiquer_echantillon, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 useful operational context: the input is per SIREN, an API key is required, and the free plan allows 5 SIREN per call. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or when not to use it, so usage conditions are only implied.

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