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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the 'newest first' ordering and the polling pattern with an advancing `since`. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful operational context for monitoring, though it doesn't detail pagination behavior, which is covered by schema.

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 two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the purpose and scope; the second provides usage guidance and an alternative. It is front-loaded and every phrase earns its 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?

For a tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, monitoring use case, optional filtering, and directs to the correct sibling for company-specific queries. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke it is missing; return format is not described but no output schema exists, so that is not a gap.

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 all five parameters are well-documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the `departement` parameter with 'Optionally narrow to a département' and clarifies the `since` parameter's role in polling, but does not add substantial new semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline is 3 given high coverage.

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 the tool returns recent French insolvency-proceeding notices published since a given date, newest first, and specifies the exact types of notices (redressement judiciaire, liquidation judiciaire, sauvegarde). It distinguishes itself from bodacc_company_events, which is a sibling, by explicitly saying 'For a specific company's status use bodacc_company_events instead.' This provides a precise verb+resource definition.

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?

It explicitly says it is 'Built for monitoring' and instructs to 'poll with an advancing `since` to catch new insolvency events,' which gives clear when-to-use guidance. It also mentions optional narrowing by département and explicitly points to an alternative for specific company status, covering both use and non-use cases.

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