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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns a 'structured, audited deliverable', discloses async behavior via the 'async' parameter, and mentions server-side validation. It does not contradict annotations. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or error handling, so it provides moderate additional value.

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 block of text with a mix of French and English, including a run-on list of example questions and a reference case. It is moderately sized but lacks clear structure (e.g., separate sections for purpose, parameters, output). It could be more concise and better organized for quick 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 the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and performs a complex classification task, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the output format or behavior for all input combinations. The absence of an output schema means the description should elaborate on the deliverable, but it only vaguely mentions 'structured, audited deliverable'. Additional completeness is needed for effective agent usage.

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 only 17%, but the description does little to explain parameters beyond the company_description implied by examples. The 'async' parameter is documented in the schema, but the description does not clarify company_url, company_name, focus_classifications, or primary_revenue_source. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving agents without crucial parameter semantics.

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 classifies companies into NAICS, SIC, NACE, GICS, HS, ISIC codes, and provides example queries. It is specific about the resource (industry classification) and verb (classify, return deliverable). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the unique combination of classification codes sets it apart. The purpose is well-defined but could be more succinct.

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 lists several usage scenarios through example questions (e.g., 'What is the NAICS code for a company that does <activity>?', 'Classify this business into NAICS + SIC + ISIC...'), giving clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools, which would strengthen guidance.

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