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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful scope about what data is returned, but does not go beyond that with caveats, permissions, or no-result behavior.

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 definition is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the entity scope and then enumerates the returned information. There is no filler or redundant explanation.

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 simple read-only, single-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is largely complete because it states the entity input and the main returned metrics. It could still clarify no-result behavior or output shape, but the core information an agent needs is present.

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%, and the schema already documents the entreprise parameter as a name or SIREN with examples. The description’s “(nom ou SIREN)” repeats the schema rather than adding new parameter semantics.

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 for a company identified by name or SIREN and lists the specific public-procurement outputs returned. It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with qui_remporte_les_marches.

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 implies usage for a given company by saying “Pour une entreprise (nom ou SIREN)” and listing the returned metrics. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or routing advice versus sibling tools such as qui_remporte_les_marches.

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