Coordonnées de l'entreprise

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. It does include the GET method, which aligns with the annotations, but that's redundant. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but also doesn't go beyond them.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose (coordonnées de l'entreprise) and lists the exact fields returned, followed by the endpoint. There is no wasted text or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation with one parameter.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it lists all fields that will be returned and the HTTP endpoint. It doesn't mention error cases or response format, but these are less critical for a simple GET. The main omission is a brief note on when to use this vs. getEntreprise, but that's covered under usage guidelines.

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 the only parameter 'entrepriseId' described as 'ID entreprise encodé (hashid)'. The tool description does not add any further meaning to this parameter—it only lists the output fields. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description offers no additional semantic value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it retrieves company contact details (name, type, address, country, VAT, phone, email, website). It also includes the HTTP endpoint, making the operation explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like updateCompanyInfo by being a read operation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb and resource are specific, and the field list removes ambiguity.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions, exclusions, or compare with getEntreprise or updateCompanyInfo. An agent is left to infer that it's for reading company contact info, but there's no explicit routing to the correct tool among siblings.

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