Triage OSINT gratuit d’une entreprise

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: fault-tolerant coverage, contradictions, quality gates, and the explicit disclaimer that it never certifies absence of risk. However it omits cost/latency expectations, whether the call is idempotent, and what the report actually returns.

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?

It is a single efficient sentence with no padding, but it is packed with unexplained jargon ('quality gates', 'ramifications', 'alias compatible') that front-loads abstraction rather than the concrete operation.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, a one-sentence jargon-heavy description is not complete enough. The agent lacks guidance on identifier format, expected output, and how this differs from sibling report tools.

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 single required 'siren' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is never referenced in the description. No format, length, or validation guidance is offered, so the description adds nothing over the bare schema.

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 frames the tool as an 'alias compatible du rapport consolidé' producing coverage, branches, contradictions and quality gates, which hints at a triage report, but it never states plainly that it runs an OSINT triage on a company. There is no differentiation from siblings like build_company_investigation_report or get_company_snapshot, so an agent cannot easily tell what unique output this yields.

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 mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. The only usage-adjacent statement is the caveat 'ne certifie jamais l'absence de risque', which is a limitation, not routing guidance.

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