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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses key non-obvious behaviors: filtering by publication date rather than act date, the median 16-day discrepancy, the rate limit cost per company, and the meaning of an empty list. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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 concise and well-ordered: it states the core purpose, then the operational constraint, then the subtle date-filter caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition of the schema.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, query intent, batching, and empty-result semantics. It does not describe the response fields or pagination, but the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the simple, familiar 'list of announcements' mental model.

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 documents both parameters fully, including SIREN formatting and the since default, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by clarifying that 'since' refers to publication date and by explaining the per-company rate-limit consumption, which affects batching.

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 the tool's purpose: retrieving French official gazette announcements about companies since a date. It uses concrete user questions to make the resource and scope obvious, and it is distinguishable from siblings like financials or timeline by its 'announcements in the gazette' focus.

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 gives strong usage guidance for the 'any news since my last check' scenario and explicitly instructs users to batch up to 20 companies in one call. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, but the purpose and context are clear enough for correct selection.

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