insee_get_unite_legale

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 discloses a meaningful operational requirement ('Requires a valid portal API key') and sketches what is returned (status, denomination, activity codes). Yet it stays silent on failure behavior (e.g., unknown SIREN), rate limits, and whether the response is a raw records envelope. Decent but not exhaustive for an unannotated tool.

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?

Compact and well-ordered: the purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a single usage sentence and an Args block. No filler, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Low complexity (one required parameter) with an output schema present, so return-value detail is not needed. The description covers the data returned, the parameter format, and the auth requirement. Housekeeping details like error semantics and rate limits are the only gaps, which are minor for a simple lookup 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'Nine-digit SIREN (spaces optional)' documents the expected format and normalizability beyond the bare string type in the schema. This is genuinely added value for the only parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the legal unit (unité légale) for one 9-digit SIREN.' It implicitly differentiates itself from sibling insee_get_etablissement by keying on SIREN vs. SIRET, and the use case 'resolve a company identifier to its official INSEE record' sharpens the intent. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

'Use this to resolve a company identifier to its official INSEE record' gives a clear when-to-use context. However, there is no mention of the natural alternative insee_get_etablissement, no exclusions, and no guidance on when NOT to use this tool. The when-to is present, but the when-not-to is absent.

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