search_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It identifies the tool as a SEARCH operation (POST /siren/recherche) and adds prerequisire context, but does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or response behavior. With an output schema available, some transparency gaps remain, but the prerequisite info is valuable.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct value (purpose, prerequisite, sibling alternative). No wasted words; front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given the 6 optional parameters and available output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, prerequisite, and sibling alternative. It could mention pagination behavior, but the schema already covers limit and ignorer, so the description is sufficient.

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 detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches legal units (SIRENs) via a POST endpoint. It distinguishes from the sibling get_company_by_siren by noting the preferred use case when the exact SIREN is known.

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?

Explicitly advises to use get_company_by_siren when the exact SIREN is known, and provides prerequisite context that a company must appear here before its establishments can be resolved. This helps the agent choose correctly.

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