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

Beyond the strong annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: coverage starts at 2008, a company may exist without any published changes, unchanged fields are absent, and SIREN-only announcements are excluded with an approximate noise rate. This materially sets agent expectations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage guidance, exclusions, coverage limitation, and data relevance. It is longer than average but all content is decision-relevant for an agent, and the structure front-loads the core definition.

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?

The description is very complete for selecting and invoking the tool: it lists the returned change types, boundaries, and failure-relevant coverage limits. It stops short of describing the exact response shape or ordering, but with no output schema, the field list and change semantics give enough context for correct use.

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 fully documents the single 'siren' parameter, including format and the SIRET distinction. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 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 states an extremely specific scope: every dated change recorded in the French official gazette for one company, with explicit fields (share capital, legal name, legal form, registered office, stated activity, insolvency judgments). It clearly distinguishes itself from current-state tools by emphasizing that only changes are published.

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 gives explicit example questions to answer and directly says 'Do NOT use it to get the current state', which is excellent negative guidance. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, so the routing is not quite as explicit as it could be, but the use cases and exclusions are clear.

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