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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond this: it qualifies the Nogogo grade as indicative, not an official/credit rating or automated decision, and explains the nature of the data source.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The list of returned fields is somewhat verbose but justified given the output schema; the exclusion clause at the end is efficient. Slightly lengthy overall.

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?

Since an output schema exists, explaining return fields is optional but the description still summarizes them appropriately. The single vs multi-company boundary and the nature of the grade are well-covered; the only missing piece is guidance toward find_french_company for resolving a SIREN.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's format (exactly 9 digits) is fully documented in the schema. The description only reiterates that the input is a SIREN and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so a 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 (consulte) and resource (note Nogogo) scoped to a single French company via SIREN. The explicit exclusion of comparisons, rankings, batch processing and aggregation clearly distinguishes it from any broader sibling usage.

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 makes the single-company scope explicit and rules out multi-company operations, which is clear usage guidance. It does not name the sibling find_french_company as an alternative for discovering a SIREN, leaving that routing to inference.

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