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

No annotations are provided, but the description fully compensates by disclosing GDPR-related data stripping, 24h caching, per-call pricing, and the specific return fields (SIREN, legal form, NAF, etc.). This goes well beyond basic purpose and gives the agent important operational 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 concise at three sentences and front-loads the purpose. The parameter list in the second sentence is dense but still readable, and every sentence contributes useful information. Slightly long but appropriate for the complexity.

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?

Despite having only two schema parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the query syntax, expected return data, privacy constraints, caching, and cost, leaving little gap for an agent to invoke the tool incorrectly.

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?

The description explains q as a name or SIREN and notes per_page range (1-10), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it also lists optional parameters (page, code_postal, activite_principale, etat_administratif) that are not present in the input schema, which could mislead an agent into passing invalid arguments. Thus it partially compensates but introduces ambiguity.

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 identifies the tool as an official French company registry search, specifying the data source (recherche-entreprises.api.gouv.fr / INSEE Sirene) and what it returns. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lookup_company_uk by being France-specific.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: French company lookups by name or SIREN, with query examples and optional filters. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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