Search the official business directory. Text defaults to establishments in 974; direct SIREN/SIRET ignores geography. Read-only adapter. Cache 5min; stale replies are marked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| api_key | No | othernet agent token, used only by othernet authorization. Never sent to the government provider. | |
| department | No | French department code. Default 974 = La Réunion. | 974 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: a 5-minute cache with stale replies explicitly marked, and the framing as a read-only adapter. It stops short of explaining pagination or result limits across pages.
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?
Four short, front-loaded sentences with little waste; the core search action and its scoping rule come first. "Read-only adapter" mildly repeats the readOnlyHint annotation but is brief enough not to hurt.
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 5-parameter, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers query semantics, default geography, caching and read-only status. It omits pagination behavior (page/limit), which is the only notable 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 coverage is only 40%, and the schema gives no description for `q`, so the description carries real weight by explaining that text queries default to establishments in department 974 while a direct SIREN/SIRET lookup ignores geography. It does not add meaning for `page`/`limit`, but the key semantic interaction is covered.
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 a specific verb+resource ("Search the official business directory"), which implicitly distinguishes it from the address and communes search siblings. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling tools it should not be confused with.
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 explains how the primary query behaves (text query vs. direct SIREN/SIRET lookup and the geography default), which is useful usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over the address or communes search alternatives, leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.