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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a creditable job: it discloses that this is a paid call at 0.01 USDC via x402, which is exactly the kind of operational fact an agent needs before invoking. It also discloses what comes back (days left, where to serve the objection) and the statutory basis for the 10-day and 30-day windows. It does not say whether billing occurs on failed or empty lookups, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

One dense but well-ordered passage: scope first, then covered transaction types, then the resulting deadlines with legal citations, then price. The statutory references earn their place because they justify why the windows differ by transaction type. No filler sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does describe the key returned fields (deadline, days remaining, venue for service), plus cost and batch limits. What is missing is the exact input encoding and any note on how companies without a qualifying publication are represented in the response. For a single-parameter lookup this is close to complete.

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 0% and the single parameter is just a bare string named 'sirens', so the description must compensate and it partly does: it establishes SIREN as the identifier and caps the batch at 50 companies. However, it never specifies the string encoding for multiple SIRENs (comma-separated, space-separated, JSON array) or SIREN validation rules, which is the one thing an agent most needs to get right here.

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 names a precise resource: creditor opposition deadlines for French companies published in the BODACC, covering business sales, mergers, demergers and partial asset transfers. An agent immediately knows this is a read-only deadline lookup keyed on SIREN. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling oppositions_example, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Scope is implied rather than stated: 'For 1 to 50 French companies (SIREN)' tells the agent the eligible population and batch ceiling, and the enumerated transaction types tell it which events qualify. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no guidance about what to do for non-French entities or companies with no BODACC publication.

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