Controler la conformite et le risque d'une entreprise francaise

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It names data sources (SIRENE, VIES, BODACC) and outputs, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as external API calls, rate limits, permissions, or potential side effects. It is read-only in nature but this is not confirmed.

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?

A single sentence that covers the main functionality and outputs. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability but it is concise and effective.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return value. It mentions risk signals, a score (0-100), and level (faible/moyen/eleve), which is adequate. However, it does not specify the format or structure of the risk signals, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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%, with both parameters having descriptions. The tool description adds context that the SIREN can be 9 or 14 digits and explains the response_format options, reinforcing but not significantly extending the schema.

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 a comprehensive KYC check from a SIREN, listing specific checks (administrative status, VIES validation, BODACC procedures, seniority) and outputs risk signals, score, and level. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on individual components.

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 description implies use for KYC compliance but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like fr_vat_compute or fr_bodacc_search. No guidance on when to use this combined tool vs. individual tools.

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