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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the data source (DECP), the detailed return structure, the individual-enterprise exclusion, and the quota cost. It does not cover error cases, but the annotations lower the bar for safety disclosure.

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?

Three dense sentences: purpose, return structure, and exclusions/cost. The output fields are enumerated in a clear list, and there is no filler or repetition of annotation data.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: summary metrics, top buyers, and recent contract fields. It also covers cost and a key exclusion, making it complete enough 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the SIREN-based data matching and an example, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for either parameter.

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: 'Liste les marchés publics remportés par une société française' and immediately identifies the key input (SIREN). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like propecto_rechercher_marches (search) and propecto_marche (single contract).

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 makes the usage context explicit: call it with a French company SIREN to get won public contracts. It also gives a clear exclusion: 'Les entreprises individuelles ne sont pas servies.' It does not name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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