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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description nonetheless adds what the agent gets back — an in_insolvency flag and latest BODACC court announcements — which is meaningful disclosure given there is no output schema. It omits error behavior for unknown/invalid SIRENs.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and identifier, then the returned fields, then the use case — no filler. The field enumeration is long but earns its place because there is no output schema; it stays within two 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential payload contents and the insolvency signal an agent needs. Remaining gaps (SIREN format, invalid-input behavior) are minor but real.

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 undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the burden. It does state the key is a SIREN (a real semantic gain over a bare string), but it never gives the expected format/length or what happens on a malformed SIREN.

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: a French company profile keyed by SIREN, and enumerates the payload (legal name/form, activity, active/ceased, head office, officers, insolvency, BODACC). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_establishment or search_companies, so an agent must infer the company-vs-establishment and lookup-vs-search distinction.

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?

Gives a concrete usage frame ('can I do business with this company?'), which tells the agent the intended decision this tool feeds. It offers no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives (e.g. use search_companies to find a SIREN first), so guidance is clear but incomplete.

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