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

Annotations already cover the safety profile; the description adds useful behavioral context: the endpoint is advisory only, coverage depends on public sources, and there is a per-call cost. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 organized into useful sections, but the 'Use when' section repeats the opening two sentences verbatim, which is redundant. Limitations and price are valuable, but the duplication prevents a higher score.

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 and annotations, the description covers the primary purpose, limitations, and cost. It remains incomplete because neither parameter is explained and no alternative tool is suggested, leaving the agent to infer the role of 'domain' and the identifier.

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 0% and the description says nothing about the 'identifier' or optional 'domain' parameters. The required identifier's SIREN/SIRET semantics and the meaning of 'domain' must be guessed from the schema regex and parameter name, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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?

States a specific action ('Returns structured public counterparty context') and a clear use domain (automated B2B payment). It also immediately distinguishes itself from decision-oriented tools by saying it never approves or recommends a payment, separating it from siblings like risk, default_score, or verify.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Avoid when' guidance: use before an automated B2B payment, avoid as a legal, regulated credit, or guaranteed fraud-free decision. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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