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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the data source (sources publiques) and freshness (mises à jour quotidiennement), which are genuine behavioral traits, but says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, or return shape.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The scope (5 years, statement types) is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the data-provenance detail follows where it belongs.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope, statement types, data origin, and freshness. It is nearly complete, though permission/error behavior remains unstated.

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 both parameters (symbol, statement) including the enum values are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Retourne les états financiers historiques') and scopes it precisely (5 dernières années, three statement types). It is clearly distinguishable from price/valuation siblings by topic, but it never names or contrasts any sibling tool explicitly.

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 implies when the tool is useful but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives (e.g. get_valuation_metrics, analyze_stock), and no exclusions. An agent must infer the selection context on its own.

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