Chiffres clés des comptes annuels

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

Annotations only declare read-only and open-world behavior; the description adds the INPI source, the returned metrics, the two fiscal years, and the account types (complete, simplified, consolidated). It still does not explain response structure or missing-data behavior, so it adds useful but not comprehensive behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the resource, then a compact parenthetical enumeration and account-type qualifier. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the title.

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 simple read-only, two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description gives the return-field inventory, source, periods, and account scope. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits availability caveats.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds that results cover the requested exercise and the previous one, clarifying the exercice parameter's effect. It does not add SIREN syntax, but the schema already documents that fully.

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 names the exact resource: key figures from annual accounts filed with INPI, and enumerates the financial metrics and periods covered. It is clearly distinguishable from company identity and document siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any named alternative among the sibling tools. An agent can infer this is for financial key figures, but the description does not route between this, fiche_entreprise, and the document-download tools.

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