Fiche d'une entreprise (RNE)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the description's real contribution is disclosing the restricted scope: bénéficiaires effectifs are not accessible. It also compensates for the absent output schema by enumerating the returned fields, though it says nothing about behavior when the SIREN is unknown or invalid.

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, the core purpose front-loaded followed by the scope limitation. The long field enumeration earns its place because there is no output schema, though it could be tightened slightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates return fields and flags the restricted data. Gaps remain on failure behavior (unknown SIREN, nonexistent company) and on how a SIREN is obtained, but the essential calling information is 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 100% and the schema already specifies the 9-digit SIREN format and that spaces are tolerated. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 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?

Names a specific resource (fiche d'une entreprise) and its authoritative source (Registre national des entreprises), then enumerates exactly which fields it returns. That enumeration distinguishes it implicitly from rechercher_entreprises, but it never explicitly states the relationship to that sibling, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the field list suggests it is a detail lookup by SIREN and the note on bénéficiaires effectifs excludes one data need. There is no explicit 'call this when you already have a SIREN' guidance, no mention that rechercher_entreprises should be used first to obtain one, and no error-case guidance.

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