Open a dossier

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

The description adds a useful behavioral detail: the SIREN is verified against the registry first, implying an error path if it does not exist. However, it does not disclose whether opening creates a new dossier, what happens if one already exists, or what side effect the optional note has, and the annotations are all false and provide little coverage.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the action and resource, the second adds a meaningful precondition. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the schema.

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 the small parameter set, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally usable. However, it leaves the state-change semantics and sibling-tool routing underspecified, so it is not fully complete for an agent operating without extra context.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description only reinforces the role of siren via the registry verification and adds no new semantics for the note 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 clearly states the action ('Open') and resource ('a KYB dossier for a company'), and adds a concrete verification step. It is distinguishable from siblings by name and wording, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with tools like get_dossier or list_dossiers.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention that get_dossier should be used to read an existing dossier or that search_companies might be needed to find a SIREN first; the only implied context is the registry-existence check.

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