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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses graceful degradation of sub-checks, the 'never charged on failure' policy, the price, and the condensed verdict format. This goes beyond minimal expectations and gives the agent confidence in failure handling.

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 packed with vital information: purpose, sub-checks, input format, failure behavior, price. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose before operational details.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, input format, expected output (risk verdict with reasons and score), pricing, and failure behavior. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without missing critical context.

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 schema has one parameter 'number' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by specifying the accepted formats (SIREN or SIRET) and providing the query pattern. However, the 'siren=...' phrasing could be slightly ambiguous about whether the value should include that prefix, so it's not a perfect compensation.

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 performs one-call due diligence on French companies via SIREN/SIRET, enumerating specific checks (SIRENE, BODACC, VIES, sanctions) and the output (risk verdict with score). This distinguishes it from siblings that cover only subsets, like check_insolvency_fr or screen_sanctions.

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 context is clear: it is for comprehensive due diligence on French companies, including pricing and input format. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, such as referring to verify_company_eu for broader EU coverage.

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