Rechercher une entreprise au RNE

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return content (SIREN, forme juridique, siège) and the substring matching behavior, which an agent needs to interpret results; only pagination semantics are left to 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 tight sentences with zero filler; the search scope and matching mode are front-loaded before the filter and return details.

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 responsibly names the returned fields, and the schema covers defaults and limits for paging. Only the search-vs-detail routing relative to fiche_entreprise is missing, which is a minor gap for a straightforward lookup 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 description coverage is 100%, so both the required denomination and the postal-code/page/size parameters are already documented with patterns and bounds. The description's note that matching is « contient » and the postal code acts as a filter adds only marginal meaning, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource (recherche d'entreprises dans le RNE) plus the matching mode (« contient ») and the optional filter. It is clearly a search tool, distinguishable from the fiche_* detail siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 description implies usage: search by name fragment, optionally narrowed by postal code. But it never states when to prefer it over fiche_entreprise or what happens when a search returns an ambiguous list — the agent must infer the search-then-detail workflow.

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