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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and closed-world. The description adds valuable behavioral details: only legal entities are listed, individual businesses are counted in personnes_physiques_non_affichees, the source is DECP, and the cost is one quota unit. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 opens with the main purpose, then efficiently covers output fields, exclusions, source, and cost. It is somewhat dense, but each sentence adds useful information and there is no redundant 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 compensates by listing the returned buyer summary, principal supplier fields, and the handling of individual businesses. It could clarify what 'principaux' means or the sorting criteria, but overall an agent has enough to understand the response shape.

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 already describes both parameters fully, including SIREN/SIRET format, tolerances, limits, and default. The description adds only an illustrative example and restates the input requirement. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action: list companies that won contracts with a public buyer, using a SIREN/SIRET. It also summarizes the returned buyer info and principal suppliers. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like propecto_marches_remportes, but the buyer-centric scope is evident.

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: provide a public buyer's SIREN or SIRET to retrieve winning suppliers, with an example for Lyon. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives among siblings, but the input condition is explicit and unambiguous.

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