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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses API-key gating (territories/sectors work without a key, companies require one), a unit cost (2 for territory, 1 for company), and the output contract: every figure carries a [S1]/[S2] citation, missing values are reported as 'non disponible', and scheduling is described but not executed. These are exactly the behavioral traits annotations cannot convey.

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?

It front-loads the purpose and then groups details by the two invocation modes, with cost and constraints last. It is dense but every clause (return content per type, citation rule, API gating, cost) contributes information; only minor tightening of the long coastline-style sentence would improve it.

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 the return content — and it does so thoroughly: stock, monthly flux, baromètre, 1-5 year trends for territories, and last exercise plus sector/territory quartile positioning for companies, along with the citation legend. Combined with annotations, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by supplying full JSON invocation examples ({"type":"territoire","niveau":"departement","code":"69"} and {"type":"societe","siren":"791143795"}) that show the cross-parameter relationship between type, niveau and code, plus the siren format, adding genuine value over the schema alone.

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 names a specific verb and resource: statistical analysis of a territory or company producing a written French synthesis. It clearly carves out a distinct capability (a cited, prose synthesis) rather than raw data lookup, which implicitly separates it from siblings like propecto_societe or propecto_finances, but it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 explicit branching guidance: use type="territoire" with niveau/code for aggregated territory or sector data, type="societe" with siren for company analysis. It states the exclusion clearly — company analysis is reserved for API keys — and specifies cost per call, so an agent knows exactly which invocation path to take and under what conditions.

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