Lister les actes et comptes DATA INPI

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Liste' implies a read-only enumeration, but there is no disclosure of return format, pagination, permissions, or whether results are metadata versus linked documents. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the scope front-loaded and no wasted clauses. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter listing tool, though it could carry one more clause without becoming bloated.

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, no annotations, and one param at 0% coverage, the description should clarify what is actually returned. It names the resource types, which partially serves that role, but leaves open whether the result is a list of attachments/metadata or the documents themselves and how they are ordered or paged.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate; it mentions the parameter only indirectly by stating the resources are 'associés à un SIREN'. That ties the single obvious argument to its meaning, but adds no format, validation, or example beyond the parameter name itself.

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 ('Liste') and enumerates the concrete resources (actes, statuts, comptes annuels publics, bilans structurés) scoped to a SIREN in the RNE. It is clear enough to distinguish from download-style siblings, but it never explicitly says it returns a list of attachments/metadata rather than content, nor names a sibling it is not.

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 when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives. With siblings like get_inpi_rne_record, get_inpi_structured_balance, and download_inpi_act_pdf in the same family, the agent gets no signal about when this listing is the right call versus those tools.

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