Search companies

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the description only needs to add operational context. It adds the registry source and the exact summary fields returned (SIREN, status, activity, head office, headcount band). It does not detail pagination behavior or sorting, but that is partially represented by page/per_page in the schema.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states scope and source, the second states return contents and a pointer to the logical next tool. Information is front-loaded and each 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?

For a search tool with an output schema, rich annotations, and schema-documented filtering parameters, the description covers the necessary context: what is searched, where, what is returned, and when to switch to get_company. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 71%, and the schema already explains query, naf_code, department, only_active, and postal_code. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and page/per_page are not explicitly described in either, though their names/defaults make them predictable.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search French companies, associations and public bodies in the official registry (SIRENE/RNE).' It also disambiguates from a key sibling by directing SIREN-based detail lookups to get_company, so the agent can distinguish it from sibling tools without opening schemas.

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 final sentence provides an explicit alternative and condition: 'Use get_company on a SIREN for directors and financials.' This tells the agent when to switch from this summary-search tool to a more detailed tool, which satisfies the when-to-use/alternative guidance.

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