entreprises_in_radius

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context: source (DINUM), bounded radius (50 km), return fields (CA, dirigeants, etc.), and the payload reduction feature. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful additional detail.

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 well-structured with an introduction, two bullet-like paragraphs for modes, and a note on payload reduction. It is front-loaded with purpose. While it could be slightly more concise, the structure is clear and efficient.

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 10 parameters, no required params, and an output schema (not shown but noted), the description covers modes, constraints (radius limit, incompatible params), feature toggle (includeDirigeants), and return fields. It is comprehensive for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities and limitations.

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 each parameter described. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining how parameters relate to the two modes (e.g., 'lat' and 'lon' belong to proximity mode) and detailing the includeDirigeants feature's effect, adding meaningful interpretation.

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 French companies with filters (NAF, postal code, department, geographic radius) and explicitly distinguishes two exclusive modes (proximity using lat/lon/radiusKm vs administrative using q/codePostal/departement), which differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each of the two exclusive modes, notes that proximity mode does not support q, codePostal, or departement (with an error if combined), and explains the payload reduction option (includeDirigeants) for volume enumeration, giving clear context for decision-making.

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