verifier_siret

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

No annotations; description reveals three checks but omits output format, error handling, or rate limits. Some behavioral context is provided but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Concise, front-loaded with main purpose, no superfluous sentences. Efficient communication.

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?

No output schema and description does not explain return values or what the agent should expect (e.g., boolean or structured result). Missing crucial completeness for a verification 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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions; the tool description adds context on how parameters are used (e.g., numero for format/Luhn, verifierEtat for API call), enhancing understanding beyond schema.

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 verifies French SIRET/SIREN numbers, specifies three verification steps (format, Luhn, API), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like rechercher_entreprise.

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?

Provides explicit usage context (validating partners before contracts) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparisons to alternatives.

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