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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the returned fields (address, NAF, open/closed, head office) rather than just restating the annotations.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and identifier before the use case. Nothing redundant, though the trailing phrase "open or closed, head office or not" is slightly clunky.

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 single-parameter lookup with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers identity, returned fields, and use case adequately. Only parameter-level detail (SIRET format/handling of unknown SIRET) 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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. "By SIRET" identifies the key and its role, but adds no format, validation, or lookup-failure detail beyond what the schema type implies.

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 (get) and resource (one establishment of a French company) keyed by SIRET, and enumerates what is returned (address, NAF activity, open/closed, head office flag). It implicitly separates itself from get_company by scoping to a single establishment, though it never names that sibling 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?

"Use it to check a supplier's or invoice's address" gives a concrete context for reaching for this tool. It offers no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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