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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds a useful limitation about coverage depending on public sources, plus pricing and accepted x402 networks. However, it does not explain why the tool is not flagged read-only or whether the underlying endpoint has any side effects or rate limits, leaving some behavior opaque.

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 first sentence is duplicated verbatim in the 'Use when' section, which wastes a line without adding information. The remaining sections (limitations, price, networks) are short and to the point, but the redundant repetition and boilerplate disclaimer undermine conciseness.

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 6-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It covers what the tool does and some operational details, but not the meaning or intended use of the optional parameters, nor any guidance on when to prefer it over siblings. The presence of an output schema helps, but the missing parameter semantics and usage context leave the definition insufficient.

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 0%, so the 6 parameters have no inline documentation. The description only implies that latitude and longitude are the primary inputs via 'around geographic coordinates'; it says nothing about radius_km, limit, activity_code, or activity_section. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple optional filters.

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 states a specific verb ('searches'), a resource ('French companies'), and a distinctive scope ('around geographic coordinates using the official public company search geolocation endpoint'). This clearly separates it from the many sibling company_fr tools like profile or search, even without inspecting schemas.

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 'Use when' section merely repeats the description verbatim and offers no decision guidance. The 'Avoid when' section is a generic legal disclaimer about credit/fraud decisions, not a comparison against alternatives. No sibling tools or conditions are mentioned, so an agent gets little help choosing this tool over company_fr_search or company_fr_prospecting.

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