company-profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the pricing model ($0.020 per call, x402/USDC) and the returned field set, but says nothing about rate limits, authentication beyond payment, error behavior, or freshness/latency of the registry data.

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 front-loaded: resource and field list first, then parameter, usage, and price. Every clause adds information, though the em-dash field enumeration is slightly list-like and could be trimmed without loss.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately enumerates the identity fields an agent can expect. Combined with the SIREN usage note and pricing, it is complete enough to call correctly, with only error/edge-case behavior left unaddressed.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description flags the ?siren= parameter and its role as the required lookup key, but does not mention the other documented params (naf, name, status) or clarify that siren must be a 9-digit SIREN rather than a SIRET.

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 resource (consolidated French state-registry company identity) and enumerates the exact fields returned (SIREN, legal form, NAF, headcount, HQ, VAT, creation, status). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling company-search by positioning itself as the downstream identity lookup keyed on a SIREN.

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?

Provides clear usage context: "Use with a SIREN from company-search for registry identity, status and financial strength of a French company". It names the sibling that produces the input key and states the intent, but gives no explicit when-not-to-use or handling for an invalid/unknown SIREN.

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