pennylane_create_company_customer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't state whether duplicate detection applies (relevant since idempotentHint=false), whether the SIREN/TVA are validated, or what the response contains – though the output schema exists so return format is covered. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, the description's near-total silence is a mild, not severe, gap.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: the action and entity type first, the required field second. No filler, padding, or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. What's missing for an 11-parameter creation tool in a multi-dossier system is context on tenant/dossier scoping, duplicate handling, and why the SIREN/TVA fields matter – enough to make this merely minimally viable rather than complete.

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%, with every one of the 11 fields documented (e.g., reg_no as 'Numéro SIREN (9 chiffres)'), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Le nom (raison sociale) est obligatoire' echoes what the schema already enforces via the required array and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it.

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 ('Crée un nouveau client de type entreprise') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling pennylane_create_individual_customer by naming the 'entreprise/société' type. An agent can route between the two customer-creation tools without opening either 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 guidance on when to use this versus pennylane_create_individual_customer or pennylane_create_supplier, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., required dossier context, which matters given the multi-dossier sibling tools). The only usage-relevant statement is the required-field note, which the schema already enforces.

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