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

Annotations are all false (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), so the description carries full burden. It discloses that source records are not modified, that a successful call consumes x402 payment, that the payment-required challenge is free, and that repeating may require a new payment. It also details the 366-day window limit and cursor binding rules. This is excellent transparency.

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-structured with clear sections (purpose, use when, avoid when, limitations, price, paid-call behavior, accepted networks). It is front-loaded with the primary statement and every sentence adds value — no filler or redundant information.

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's complexity (paid call, constraints, alternatives, payment behavior), the description covers all essential aspects an agent needs to decide and invoke correctly: purpose, usage, limitations, pricing, payment semantics, and accepted networks. An output schema exists, but the description still fully contextualizes the call.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds meaningful nuance about the cursor being bound to the date-window query and the distinction between Sirene creation date and BODACC publication date, which clarifies parameter intent. This goes beyond the schema, although the core parameter meanings are already clear.

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 ('Lists'), resource ('French legal units'), and context (created in a date window from the official Sirene source). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives (company/fr/events, legal-announcements-search) for BODACC publication events, making it clear what it is not.

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?

Includes explicit 'Use when' and 'Avoid when' sections that define in which situations this tool is appropriate and point to the correct alternatives. This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke it versus the siblings.

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