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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds behavioral details: it calls inspect_site (costly, cap at 3), checks M&A signals via entreprise_by_siren, and produces a couverture flag per competitor. However, it does not describe return format or pagination, so slightly less than perfect.

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 well-structured with lists and bold terms. It is informative but not overly verbose; every sentence adds value. A minor improvement could be trimming redundancy (e.g., 'Cap dur') but overall efficient.

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 complexity (combines multiple internal tools) and no output schema, the description fairly complete. It covers what checks are performed, the cap, error handling, typical inputs, and data sources. Missing explicit output structure, but the couverture flag is mentioned.

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 100% with descriptions. The description adds context: 'max' default is 3, and 'finess' are typically the top 3 from another tool. It also explains the token cost cap ties to 'max'. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema.

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 performs an in-depth investigation of top competitors, specifying what it checks (status, team size, history, M&A, parent group). It distinguishes itself from siblings like inspect_site and entreprise_by_siren by being a composite tool that calls them internally. The verb 'enquête' and the enumeration of checks provide a precise purpose.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Typiquement appelé sur concurrents.top[0..2].finess renvoyés par panorama_implantation_complet.' Also provides constraints: hard cap max=3, token cost warning, and error handling (one failing competitor doesn't cancel others). This is excellent guidance.

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