List an enterprise's establishment units (BE only)

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency by stating the tool returns an array of specific fields, notes pricing is free, and warns that other jurisdictions return 501. This goes beyond annotations.

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 paragraph with clear front-loaded purpose and structured details. Every sentence adds value, but it is slightly verbose in explaining what an establishment unit is; could be tightened.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, usage boundary, parameter details, and pricing, leaving no obvious gaps. The tool is simple with few parameters, and the description is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds context for the jurisdiction parameter (only 'BE' works) and the company_id format (accepted formats listed). The fresh parameter's 'bypass cache' is briefly explained. However, no additional detail on optional behavior beyond the 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 clearly states the tool returns every establishment unit for a Belgian enterprise, explains what an establishment unit is (physical location with a 2-starting 10-digit number), distinguishes it from the enterprise legal entity, and lists the fields returned. It also mentions pricing and jurisdiction limitation, making the purpose very specific.

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 explicitly limits usage to Belgian enterprises only ('BE only') and mentions that other jurisdictions return 501. It also states that the unit is not a legal entity, implying this tool is for sub-entity data, not the main company profile. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like get_company_profile.

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