search_companies

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only identifies the data source and action; it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is needed, rate limits, pagination, or what the response contains. 'Rechercher' implies a read operation, but that is not explicitly disclosed.

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 states the tool's purpose and data source without filler. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it is minimal enough that it omits behavioral context.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is under-specified. It does not explain response format, pagination behavior, error cases, or any operational constraints. The source API reference is useful, but the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool with confidence in non-obvious scenarios.

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%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters, which sets the baseline at 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. There is also an internal schema inconsistency where 'query' is required but described as optional, though this is a schema issue rather than a description issue.

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 states a specific action ('Rechercher des entreprises') and identifies the underlying API (recherche-entreprises.api.gouv.fr), so an agent knows it performs company search. It does not need to distinguish from siblings because no sibling tools are listed, but the phrasing is still somewhat generic beyond the API reference.

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 this tool is used when searching for companies via the French recherche-entreprises API, but it gives no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Because no sibling tools are provided, the lack of alternative-selection guidance is less damaging, but the guidance is still only implicit.

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