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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses significant behavioral nuances: the silent reference establishment on first passage, the transition of subsequent changes into alerts, and the fact that the limit is portfolio size per plan (free 10, solo 50, starter 100, business 1000) rather than an API call counter. These details are not evident from annotations or schema. The description does not contradict any annotation.

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, front-loading the core purpose and then adding conditional usage and behavioral notes. It packs necessary details without excess verbosity. The structure is logical: purpose, actions, parameter requirements, behavioral quirks, and limits. It could be slightly tighter but remains efficient.

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 tool has no output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: actions, parameter requirements, behavioral state changes, and plan limits. It does not describe the return format or error handling, but for a portfolio management tool these may not be critical. The references to 'surveillance_alertes' provide linkage to the broader context. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for correct 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 fully compensates. It defines the allowed values for 'action' ('lister' | 'ajouter' | 'retirer'), explains that 'sirens' is required except for 'lister', and confirms that 'api_key' is required. It also clarifies the meaning of the SIREN list in the context of portfolio management. This is essential since the schema lacks enums and descriptions.

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 ('Gère le portefeuille de SIREN surveillés par Dataroia') with a clear resource and scope. It also enumerates the three actions ('lister', 'ajouter', 'retirer'), making the purpose unambiguous. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like 'surveillance_alertes' by clarifying its role as portfolio management rather than alert delivery.

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 explicit usage guidance: it lists valid actions, states that 'sirens requis sauf lister' (SIRENs required except for listing), and points to 'surveillance_alertes' for alert-related workflows. It also explains that the first passage on a SIREN establishes a silent reference and subsequent changes become alerts, which informs when to use this tool for setup versus when to rely on the alert tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast against other siblings like 'sante_entreprise' or 'dirigeants_entreprise', so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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