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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the data provenance and that only active businesses are returned, and it discloses the paywall model ($0.020 per call via x402/USDC) — genuinely valuable for an agent. However, it omits return shape, result limits, pagination, and any auth/error 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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then qualifiers, then the trade vocabulary, with the price appended in brackets. Dense but every clause earns its place; only the enumeration is long, and it is necessary given the absent enum in the schema.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should say more about what comes back (fields, count, pagination). It covers the domain, filters, and cost adequately but leaves the return contract and any call prerequisites unspecified for a nested-object parameter tool.

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% but the schema descriptions are only terse examples ('69', 'plombier') with no enums. The description supplies the full allowed trade vocabulary (plombier, electricien, menuisier, etc.), which is meaning the schema does not provide, and implicitly clarifies that dept is a French department code.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('find French tradespeople by trade and department') plus the data source ('official registry, active businesses only'). This clearly separates it from siblings like company-search, tender-search, and property-price without needing to open the schema.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as company-search or tender-search. The 'official registry, active businesses only' note describes data quality rather than selecting conditions between tools.

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