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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that sub-checks degrade gracefully (resilience), buyers are never charged on failure (cost safety), price ($0.05), and the output is a risk verdict with score. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the nature of the tool implies no destructive side effects.

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 but is dense and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, sub-checks, input format, graceful degradation, pricing. It is efficient but could be slightly improved with bullet points for readability.

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 complexity (multiple sub-checks, risk verdict, pricing), the description covers most critical aspects: all sub-checks, graceful degradation, pricing, input format, and output. It does not detail how the risk score is interpreted or the exact structure of the verdict, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 only one parameter 'number' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds critical meaning: it specifies that the number should be a SIREN (9 digits) or SIRET (14 digits) and provides the exact format (e.g., siren=NNNNNNNNN). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 it performs comprehensive due diligence on a French company using SIREN or SIRET, listing specific checks (checksum, existence, insolvency, VAT, sanctions) and the output (risk verdict with score). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_siret_fr or screen_sanctions.

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 explicitly says 'One-call due diligence on a French company by SIREN or SIRET' and provides the query format. It implies when to use this tool (when a comprehensive risk assessment is needed) and mentions that sub-checks degrade gracefully with no charge on failure, which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it.

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