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

The description discloses source-dependent availability, incomplete histories when accounts are missing or confidential, and explicitly disclaims being a credit assessment or audit opinion. These caveats add real behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations; readOnlyHint=false is not inconsistent with the described data-returning 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 uses clear labeled sections—summary, use when, avoid when, limitations, price—which front-load the core action and make caveats easy to scan. The writing is efficient, and any repetition of 'available' or 'public' is minor and does not reduce 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?

For a one-parameter financial lookup with an output schema present, the description covers what is returned, when to use it, when not to use it, data limitations, and cost. An agent has enough context to decide whether to call this tool and what to expect from the response.

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 single identifier parameter is already fully documented in the schema with a regex and the explanation '9-digit SIREN or 14-digit SIRET'. The description reinforces this by saying the tool works from a SIREN or SIRET, but adds no new format or syntax details. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and object: it returns available public financial data for a French company from a SIREN or SIRET, and explicitly names revenue and net income. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like profile and verify by stating what it does and does not provide. This goes well beyond merely restating 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 concrete decision criteria, including normalized multi-year financial history and simple revenue-growth/net-margin calculations. It names sibling tools company/fr/profile and company/fr/verify as the right alternatives for administrative identity or status. This is exemplary routing guidance.

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