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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses return format (base64 PDF), typical payload size (1-10 MB), and the paid x402 model with exact cost. It does not spell out the two-step quote-then-pay interaction (omitting x_payment returns a quote, not the document), though the x_payment parameter description covers that detail.

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 sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the core action and registry source, followed by prerequisite and return format, then payment model. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and 100% schema parameter coverage, the description conveys the essential invocation facts: ID source, return encoding, size, and cost. It stops short of 5 by leaving the no-payment-quote response path to the schema and not flagging the closest sibling (get_french_company_pdf_report) as a distinct alternative.

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% with already-detailed parameter documentation, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal meaning by mapping document examples (statutes, minutes, accounts) onto the actes/bilans type families and reinforcing that document_id comes from the list tool, but the schema already carries the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: download official company documents (PDFs) from the INPI RNE registry, with concrete examples (statutes, general-meeting minutes, filed annual accounts). Naming the registry and document types distinguishes it from siblings like get_french_company_pdf_report, and the tie-in to list_french_company_documents makes its role in the document workflow explicit.

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?

Provides clear context: the agent must first obtain IDs from list_french_company_documents, and the $0.10 payment requirement implicitly signals to invoke judiciously. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use — notably no contrast with get_french_company_pdf_report for generated report PDFs.

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