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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds that the tool returns every dated notice, sorts newest first, and supports lookup by SIREN or name. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not describe output shape or pagination 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?

Three sentences carry scope, event coverage, lookup method, ordering, and a concrete user question. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and no sentence is wasted.

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?

The description is complete enough given the rich schema and annotations: it covers purpose, event families, lookup routes, sorting, and user intent. It does not detail the exact notice fields or pagination defaults, but the schema already documents those, and the framing of 'every dated notice' gives a reasonable picture of 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces SIREN preference and lists event families, but the schema already documents parameter types, defaults, aliases, and examples. The cross-pack chaining note adds mild value but does not substantially change the per-parameter meaning.

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 'Full BODACC event history for one French company' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. It enumerates the event families and gives a concrete use case, making the tool's function clear, though it does not explicitly contrast sibling tools like bodacc_search or bodacc_get_notice.

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 includes a direct when-to-use signal: 'Use this to answer "has this supplier entered insolvency / sold its business / been deregistered?"' and explains how to chain a SIREN from the entreprises-fr/insee packs. It does not state when to prefer bodacc_search or bodacc_get_notice instead, so exclusions are only implicit.

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