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

The description adds substantial context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it discloses quota cost, anonymous access limitations (no API key: no main manager, no individual companies), and null-value semantics. It also notes invalid identifiers are refused without quota consumption, complementing the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 moderately long but well-organized: core function first, then a clear list of output fields, then access caveats, then cost. Each sentence contributes, though the field enumeration could be trimmed. Front-loaded and structured well.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating all returned fields, null semantics, anonymous limitations, and cost. It also names the response format (SocieteResume). This is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 fully documents the parameter (100% coverage) with accepted formats, examples, and validation. The description only adds minor nuance like 'lorsque les données existent' for Belgium, which is not in the schema. Since the schema carries the semantic load, a baseline 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 that the tool returns a summary sheet (SocieteResume) for a company based on its identifier, listing specific fields and the exact verb 'Renvoie'. It is distinct from siblings like propecto_finances or propecto_marche due to its specific focus on the company summary.

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 provides clear context: use when you have a company identifier (SIREN, SIRET, TVA, BCE) and need the summary. It specifies country formats and data availability caveats. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like propecto_rechercher_societes or state when not to use it, so it falls 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.