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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: it counts 'OPENING judgments only' and 'judgments, not companies,' and explains that the current month is excluded because it would 'read as a collapse.' These quirks would not be inferable from the schema or annotations alone.

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 efficiently organized: the core metric and comparison period in the first sentence, scope in the second line, and key caveats in the final paragraph. Every sentence adds necessary information without repetition or fluff.

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 two optional enum parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the time window, the counting unit, the exclusion of the current month, the nature split, and the filtering rules. An agent has everything needed to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with enums and descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying that department and trade are mutually exclusive scope filters and that omitting both gives the whole country, which is not fully explicit in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Insolvency openings in France over the last twelve complete months, against the twelve before.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling company-focused tools by stating exactly what data it returns and its scope options.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: default whole country, or one department, or one trade, and explicitly says 'Pass at most one of them.' It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use them, but the scope guidance is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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