enrichir_concurrents

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

Beyond annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description adds key behavioral details: hard cap on max (3) due to token costs, per-competitor coverage flag, and independent failure handling. It also lists data sources, enhancing transparency.

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?

The description is compact yet informative, with a clear structure: purpose, data points, constraints, and usage hint. Every sentence adds value, though minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'cap dur').

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format through the coverage flag and lists the data collected. It references sibling tools and data sources, making the tool's role and dependencies clear.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters (finess and max) with reasonable detail. The description reinforces the default for max and adds context on token usage, but does not significantly extend semantic meaning beyond 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 explicitly states it performs a deep investigation of top competitors, listing specific data points (active status, team size, recent history, M&A signals, parent group) and referencing related tools. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like inspect_site or entreprise_by_siren by being a composite tool.

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 indicates it is typically called on results from panorama_implantation_complet and caps at 3 competitors, implicitly suggesting when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives directly.

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