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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses rich behavioral details: prefix-based name matching, accepted identifier formats, result fields, the 20-result cap, anonymous-mode restrictions on French legal entities, and the quota cost. This substantially exceeds what the annotations and schema alone would 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?

The description is dense but each sentence carries useful information, including output fields, use case, examples, limits, and anonymous-mode caveats. The examples and repeated maximum-result mention make it slightly longer than necessary, but it remains well structured and informative.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and covers search semantics, limits, anonymous access behavior, quota cost, and the intended follow-up tool. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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?

All parameters are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for 'q' through prefix-matching behavior and concrete examples, and clarifies the country filter and result limits; this extra context justifies a slightly above-baseline score.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: searching European companies by name prefix or identification number. It further clarifies the intended use by stating 'Sert à obtenir l'identifiant à passer ensuite à propecto_societe', distinguishing it from sibling search tools.

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 clearly explains that the tool is for finding a company identifier to pass to propecto_societe, and gives concrete search examples. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it compared with sibling tools, but the stated downstream purpose provides solid usage context.

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