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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), the description discloses substantial behavior: results come from an offline Propecto cache with no third-party call, expired badges are never returned, ceased companies receive no badges, anonymous callers do not get sole proprietorships, and each badge carries an evidence level (verifie vs declare), source, verification link, and validity dates.

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 front-loaded with the core return value and then packs in useful detail without filler. It is a single dense paragraph, so it could be more scannable, but every sentence contributes important context.

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 fully explains what each badge object contains (code, libellé, catégorie, niveau de preuve, source, lien de vérification, since, valid_until). It also covers edge cases (expired badges, ceased companies, anonymous access) and quota cost, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation or interpretation.

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 100%, and the schema already documents accepted identifier formats (SIREN, SIRET, TVA FR, BCE), examples, whitespace tolerance, and checksum validation. The description repeats the identifier types and gives an example but adds no format or validation detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Renvoie les badges EN COURS d'une société'. It then enumerates exactly which badge types are returned (certifications, labels, agréments, official registrations, marchés publics), making it clearly distinct from siblings like propecto_finances or propecto_marches_remportes.

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?

Usage context is clear: this is the tool for current certifications, labels, and official badges of a company. It also provides practical constraints (1 quota unit, anonymous access excludes sole proprietorships, expired badges are never returned) that help an agent decide when to call it. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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