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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the 10-year BODACC lookback, behavior when source coverage is insufficient, the paid-call nature via x402, that source records are not modified, that payment may be consumed, and the accepted networks. This is rich behavioral context that helps the agent manage side effects and expectations.

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 and front-loaded purpose. It is somewhat repetitive about the tool not being a credit score, appearing both in the opening and in the limitations, but the additional price and payment details are necessary and earn their place.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, when not to use it, limitations, pricing, payment behavior, and accepted networks. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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%: the single parameter 'identifier' is already described as '9-digit SIREN or 14-digit SIRET' with a validating pattern. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Detects public legal-risk signals for a French company from company status and BODACC notices, including insolvency proceedings and deregistrations.' It clearly distinguishes itself from credit scoring and from compliance-related screening, even naming the compliance sibling as the alternative for sanctions/blacklist needs.

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' sections. It tells the agent to use this tool for explainable public legal-risk signals and normalized risk levels, and to avoid it for credit scores, default probability, payment behavior, or sanctions screening, explicitly directing to company/fr/compliance for blacklist screening.

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