Cartographier les ramifications publiques

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a semantic caveat — edges represent public roles and never automatically capital participation or family ties — which prevents misinterpretation. However, it omits traversal limits, permission/cost considerations, and what the returned graph looks like.

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 with no waste: purpose first, then the semantic caveat about edges. Well front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the graph's meaning but leaves the traversal-controlling parameters and the return structure unaddressed. It is adequate on intent but incomplete on operation.

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, yet it never mentions 'siren', 'max_people', or 'max_companies_per_person'. The two bounding parameters that control graph breadth are undocumented in both the schema and the description, a significant gap for a graph-expansion tool.

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 a specific verb ('Construit un graphe') and resource ('autour d'une société ou SCI') and describes the resulting artifact (paths pivot company → person → entity), which is unique among siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from tools like search_person_mandates or get_company_snapshot, but the graph-building scope is clear.

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 stated trigger for when to use this tool versus siblings such as search_person_mandates or get_company_snapshot, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only loosely implied by 'autour d'une société ou SCI'.

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