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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining paid-call behavior: source records are not modified, a successful call may consume the x402 payment, the challenge is free, and repeats may require new payment. It also discloses that an unavailable source can make results partial and that status fields remain authoritative. This clarifies the meaning of readOnlyHint=false without contradicting it.

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 longer than average but well-structured with labeled sections (Use when, Avoid when, Limitations, Price, Paid-call behavior, Accepted networks). Every section carries decision-relevant information, though the paid-call section is slightly dense and could be tightened.

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 paid API model, multi-source aggregation, and partial-failure risk, the description covers all essential context: when to use, when to avoid, data-source limits, cost, payment mechanics, and accepted networks. The presence of an output schema means return-value format does not need to be stated in the description.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single identifier parameter, including a regex pattern and a clear '9-digit SIREN or 14-digit SIRET' description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the context that the company is French, so it neither improves nor harms parameter understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Aggregates and normalizes') and a precise resource ('public certifications and qualifications available for a French company'), then names the concrete certification types: RGE, organic/Bio, and Qualiopi. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling company_fr_* tools by scope rather than relying on the title.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Avoid when' sections give the agent concrete selection criteria: use for public RGE/Bio/Qualiopi data, avoid for exhaustive registries, private labels, or ISO certifications. It does not name an alternative sibling tool, but the exclusion conditions are specific enough to prevent obvious misuse.

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