French Companies Scraper: SIRENE Leads, Directors & Emails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: pay-per-result billing granularity (run start $0.003, company $0.004, website & contacts $0.025) and the verification requirement inside findContacts (the SIREN must appear on the site's legal notice, billed only when a website is found). It does not, however, describe auth/account prerequisites or scraping latency.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the resource, filters and returned data; the second carries the pricing model. Dense and largely waste-free, though the cost figures could arguably be deferred to documentation.

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 an eight-parameter scraper with no output schema, the description covers scope, filtering facets, returned data shape and cost behaviour, which is close to what an agent needs. It stops short of describing result structure or volume/pagination expectations, which is the main remaining gap given there is no output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter with examples. The description only restates the same facets (activity, department, size, optional contacts) at a higher level and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (French companies from the official SIRENE register) with a specific retrieval action and enumerates the returned data: legal data, headquarters, directors, and optionally a verified website with emails and phones. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings such as search_uk_companies or get_company_behind_website.

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 usage through the filter vocabulary (activity/NAF, department, size) but never states when to choose this tool over alternatives like find_new_companies_without_website or search_uk_companies, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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