insee_get_etablissement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that a valid portal API key is required, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe the return format, error behavior, or rate limits. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive 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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives usage context, and the third covers the parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup tool with an output schema present, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, when to use it, the parameter format, and the auth requirement. It doesn't mention error cases or response structure, but the output schema likely covers the return shape. Minor gap: no explicit mention of what happens for invalid SIRETs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the siret parameter is a 14-digit SIRET with spaces optional, and explains the SIREN+NIC composition. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema type string.

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 returns an establishment for a 14-digit SIRET, and distinguishes it from the sibling insee_get_unite_legale by explaining that SIRET includes SIREN plus NIC. This is a specific verb+resource with enough detail to differentiate it from related 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 explains when to use this tool (for a specific branch or address) and implicitly contrasts it with the SIREN-based sibling. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use it, but the SIRET vs SIREN distinction provides clear context.

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