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

Annotations already signal a safe, read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it returns an empty response when the company has won no declared contracts, and notes this is true for the vast majority of French companies, which helps calibrate 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?

Three sentences with no wasted words: the first defines the input and output, the second gives usage context, and the third warns about empty results. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the triggering question, and the empty-result edge case. It could add a bit more about output structure or invalid SIREN handling, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('siren' format and 'limite' constraints and default). The description adds only the general framing 'from a SIREN' but does not meaningfully enrich the parameter-level semantics beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: from a SIREN, return the public contracts a company has won, including buyers, sectors, and amounts. It also frames the tool around a company's public activity, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools focused on buyers, sectors, and open consultations.

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 explicitly says when to call the tool: when the question concerns a company's public activity, public clientele, or weight in a market. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context provided is clear enough for routing.

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