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

The description discloses that the tool searches BODACC open data, returns judgment nature/date, court, publication date, and a BODACC link. It clarifies that a 'no_match' means no publication since 2008, not historical clearance, and that it covers companies only. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden and does it well.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently conveys all necessary information without extraneous words. It is well-structured, stating the source, what is searched, what is returned, and limitations. It could be slightly more concise, but it is effective.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers input format, data source, return values (judgment details, BODACC link), date range, and limitations (companies only, no historical clearance). No gaps remain.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage. The schema's description for the 'siren' parameter adds significant guidance: it specifies exact 9-digit match and recommends using check_fr_company for name resolution. This goes beyond basic type/requirement and helps the agent use the tool correctly.

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 function as a French insolvency check against BODACC, lists specific procedures searched (sauvegarde, redressement, liquidation judiciaire, conciliation, professional recovery), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_fr_company by requiring a SIREN and suggesting name resolution first.

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 provides guidance on when to use this tool: you need a SIREN number, and it suggests using check_fr_company to resolve a company name to a SIREN. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other insolvency tools, but the context signals include many country-specific checks, implying this is for France only.

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