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

Annotations provide limited behavioral signal (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds valuable context: it is not KYC, it only covers public administrative status, and returned fields depend on what the source exposes. It also discloses the paid nature via price, which is useful beyond annotations. 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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, use-when, avoid-when, limitations, and price. Every section earns its place by helping an agent decide when to use the tool, what to expect, and what not to expect. The most important functional statement is front-loaded.

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 a single required parameter, a complete output schema, clear usage guidance, explicit exclusions, and limitations, nothing critical is missing. The description adequately covers what an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly without duplicating the output schema.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'identifier' parameter with pattern and a description ('9-digit SIREN or 14-digit SIRET'). The description repeats this concept but does not add meaningful new detail about formatting or edge cases beyond the schema, so the baseline schema coverage score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verifies') and names the exact resource: existence and current administrative status of a French company or establishment from a SIREN or SIRET. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly pointing to company_fr_search for name-based lookup and specialized endpoints for directors, financials, and risk.

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 'Use when' section gives concrete conditions: having a SIREN/SIRET and needing existence/status confirmation before automation. The 'Avoid when' section names alternatives explicitly, including company/fr/search for identifier discovery and specialized endpoints for other data types, so an agent knows exactly when NOT to invoke this tool.

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