Analyser la santé financière et l’empreinte économique

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real context: 'gratuitement' (cost), 'indicateurs reproductibles' (deterministic), and a strong output caveat that value ranges are explicit scenarios, never a certain price nor personal wealth. It omits permission/computation-source details, but the interpretive framing is unusually valuable.

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 action and scoped by the 'if evidence is provided' qualifier. Dense but no filler; the caveat sentence earns its place given the valuation ambiguity.

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 deeply nested object with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits the required evidence/limitations contract on nearly every sub-object and says nothing about the input's complexity, leaving the agent underprepared for a 100-item flows array and per-statement evidence requirements.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps the four concepts (détention=ownership, rémunération, dividendes, exposition) onto nested fields, but never addresses the required 'siren' or the mandatory evidence/limitations scaffolding, so it only partially fills the gap.

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 (analyse) plus resource (exercices publics d'une société) and the outputs it computes (indicateurs reproductibles, détention/rémunération/dividendes/exposition économique). The scope is clear enough to distinguish it from simple getters like get_company_snapshot, though it never names a sibling 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 only conditional offered is 'si les preuves sont fournies', which is behavioral rather than a routing rule. It never says when to pick this over get_company_snapshot or build_company_investigation_report, nor any prerequisite such as needing a resolved SIREN first.

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