Search French companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond the annotations by naming the return payload (SIREN, name, status, NAF code, head office, establishment counts), which is important since there is no output schema. It omits pagination/rate-limit behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and data source first, then return fields, then the follow-up routing. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy or filler.

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 7-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the source, searchable inputs, and the return payload, which is what an agent needs to call it and interpret results. It could be a 5 with a note on result limits/paging, but the essentials are present.

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 coverage is 71%, so most parameters (naf, postcode, departement, per_page, active_only) are already documented in the schema. The description's 'by name, address, leader name or SIREN/SIRET' essentially restates the query parameter's own description, adding no new syntax or format guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb (Search) plus resource (French company register) and names the underlying data source (SIRENE/RNE via API Recherche d'entreprises). It also enumerates the searchable keys (name, address, leader, SIREN/SIRET), so an agent can immediately distinguish it from search_address, reverse_geocode, and list_communes.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the sibling tool with 'Follow up with get_company for details,' establishing the search-vs-detail relationship. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., when to prefer search_address or a SIREN-specific lookup), so it stops short of a 5.

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