List a company's establishments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully warns that the registry may return matching establishments rather than an exhaustive list and introduces the `complete` flag to indicate completeness. It also discloses the ordering rule (headquarters first), which adds useful non-obvious behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action and ordering rule are front-loaded, and the critical exhaustiveness caveat follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main behaviors an agent needs: what is returned, the ordering, and the completeness caveat. It would be slightly more complete with explicit return-value details, but the description is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 parameter `siren` is already fully documented in the schema with 'SIREN, 9 digits', so schema coverage is 100%. The description repeats the SIREN concept without adding substantive new parameter detail, which aligns with the baseline score of 3.

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 that the tool lists a company's establishments for a SIREN and notes that headquarters appear first. The resource and scope are specific, and the tool is clearly distinct from the sibling tools by focusing on sites rather than company records. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast itself with siblings like get_company or search_companies.

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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs establishment-level data for a given SIREN, rather than company-level details or search results. It does not explicitly provide when/when-not guidance or mention alternative tools.

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