get_company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the scope of data returned, with no mention of behavior for unknown SIRENs, rate limits, or data freshness (e.g. 'latest published' revenue).

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and scope before enumerating fields; there is no filler. The field list is somewhat long, but every item conveys what the caller receives.

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?

With one fully documented required parameter, a rich output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition supplies nearly everything an agent needs to call it correctly. The only gap is the absence of guidance on when to prefer it over its siblings.

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% and the single 'siren' parameter already documents the 9-digit SIREN / 14-digit SIRET format with spaces allowed. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the baseline 3 for schema-complete parameters 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?

The description gives a specific verb-like resource ('Full public profile of one French company') and enumerates the content returned (identity, status, head office, VAT, revenue, net income, labels), which clearly separates it from a list/search tool. It does not, however, name or explicitly contrast with the sibling search_companies or get_bodacc_announcements, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'one French company' implies this is a single-entity detail lookup rather than a discovery search, which suggests when to use it over search_companies. But there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to the sibling tools for other needs.

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