run_fr_companies_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the upstream source (RNE / INPI) and a per-record credit cost, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema implies. Adequate but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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 clauses with zero filler: the core action and source come first, followed by the returned fields and cost. Every element earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 compensates well by enumerating the returned fields (name, registration number, status, address, link) and the cost model. Parameters are fully covered by the schema. Minor gap: no note on result volume or how max_items/start_page interact with the point cost.

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% with an enum on status, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the required 'keyword'. The description only restates that lookup is by company name, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. 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 (Search) plus a precisely named resource (France company registry, RNE / INPI) and the lookup key (company name). This clearly separates it from the sibling run_fr_companies, which is the detail-by-id counterpart, and from other country search tools.

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 phrase 'by company name' implies when the tool is applicable and the cost line ('1 point per returned record') is a useful usage consideration. However, no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no alternative is named (e.g. run_fr_companies for a known registration number), leaving routing to inference.

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