enrichir_concurrents

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), description discloses token consumption (~7K per call), hard cap on competitors, partial failure handling via coverage flag, and sub-tools used. Adds substantial behavioral context.

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?

Dense but well-structured: overall purpose, per-competitor details, cap, coverage flag, typical usage, sources. Slightly long but efficient with front-loaded key info.

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?

No output schema, but description mentions return fields (coverage flag, status, etc.). However, output structure is not fully specified, which is a gap for a complex tool.

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 covers both parameters, but description adds significant meaning: finess as top competitors by distance, max as hard cap default 3 with rationale (token usage).

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 performs a deep investigation of top competitors, listing specific data points (status, team size, recent history, M&A signals, parent group) and distinguishing it from sibling tools like inspect_site and entreprise_by_siren which are sub-calls.

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 mentions typical usage: 'Typiquement appelé sur concurrents.top[0..2].finess renvoyés par panorama_implantation_complet' and imposes a hard cap of 3, but does not explicitly state when not to use.

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