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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return fields (type, family, date, court, SIREN, link), price ($0.01 per call), payment method (USDC on Base mainnet), and source (official DILA). No contradictions or missing critical behavior.

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 somewhat verbose, mixing pricing, use cases, and return details. While all information is relevant, it could be more structured with bullet points or shorter sentences for easier parsing.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return values and input parameters. It also provides pricing, use cases, and source credibility. Missing rate limits or error handling, but not critical for a paid API.

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%, and the description adds value beyond the schema: provides input examples (e.g., 'OVH'), clarifies limit range (1-100), and lists filter options (creation, modification, etc.). Enhances usability.

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 searches the French BODACC registry for legal announcements, specifying types (incorporations, modifications, radiations, insolvencies), coverage (France, by name/SIREN/RCS), and use cases (credit-risk, KYB). This distinguishes it from siblings like fr_sirene_lookup and fr_legifrance_search.

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?

Provides input examples and mentions use cases (credit-risk, KYB, AML), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it. No direct comparison with sibling tools.

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