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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing paid-call behavior: that the x402 challenge is free, that a successful call can consume payment, and that repeating the call may require a new payment. It also reveals data limitations such as missing or confidential accounts and clarifies that this is not a credit assessment or audit opinion. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 well-organized with front-loaded purpose followed by use/avoid sections, limitations, pricing, and payment behavior. Each section earns its place and provides essential operational detail without unnecessary prose.

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 paid financial-data tool with a single parameter and output schema present, the description covers all operational context: data availability, exclusions, pricing, payment mechanics, accepted networks, and limitations. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it is missing.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'identifier' as '9-digit SIREN or 14-digit SIRET' with a validating pattern. The description only repeats this at a high level and adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Returns available public financial data for a French company from a SIREN or SIRET, including revenue and net income when available.' It names the input type and the core output, distinguishing it from administrative tools like company/fr/profile and company/fr/verify.

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 provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Avoid when' guidance, names concrete alternatives for cases involving administrative identity or status, and lists exclusions such as real-time management accounts, bank data, valuation, and credit scores. This leaves no ambiguity about when to call this tool.

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