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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It describes the tool as a 'lookup' and 'verification', implying a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is adequate. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or potential errors.

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 repetitive, essentially stating the same information in two paragraphs. It could be condensed into a single, well-structured sentence without loss of clarity.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields (legal name, administrative status, NAF/APE code, etc.) and includes pricing. It covers the essential information for an agent to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, such as noting that SIRET, SIREN, or company name can be used. The schema already provides detailed parameter descriptions.

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 is a French company/establishment lookup by SIREN, SIRET, or name against the official INSEE Sirene register. It specifies the returned fields (legal name, administrative status, NAF/APE code, etc.), making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like uk_companies_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?

The description explicitly targets KYB, AML, and supplier due-diligence agents in France, providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives.

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