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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds meaningful context by stating data is derived on demand from France Travail, snapshot under 24h, nothing stored, the aggregation methodology (SIREN-keyed, lower-bound counting, brand names/temp agencies excluded), and the cost/payment model. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide. The only minor gap is not describing the shape of the response output despite an output schema existing.

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 efficient, front-loading the core purpose before methodology and use cases. Every sentence adds substantive value—sourcing, freshness, privacy, counting rules, output components, and pricing. It is long, but the length is justified by the complexity of the signal derivation.

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 the tool's complexity, the 100% schema coverage, the output schema being present, and annotations signaling safe read-only behavior, the description covers all essential context: what data is included, how it is derived, what is excluded, when to use it, and how payment works. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether to call it.

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 schema already documents the siren, api_key, and x_payment parameters thoroughly. The description adds context about the payment flow (x402 vs api_key) but does not add much parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('get' + 'hiring signals' for a French company) and enumerates the actual signals returned (active hiring yes/no/unprovable, active postings count, ROME families, contract mix, pay display share, Egapro index, INSEE bracket). It clearly differentiates from the many sibling French company tools by focusing on hiring/talent signals.

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?

Explicitly states the use case ('sales intelligence' and 'HR/expansion signals') and provides a clear exclusion note (aggregated signals only, never posting texts or recruiter contacts). It gives a strong sense of when to use it, though it doesn't name specific alternative tools or state when not to use it relative to siblings.

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