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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose a useful cost trait ('1 point per returned record'), which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. But it omits pagination behavior, whether 'max_items' spans pages, and any auth/rate-limit notes for a paged directory endpoint.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose and returned fields front-loaded and the cost note trailing. No filler, no repetition of the title, every clause 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by listing the record fields (id, name, activity sector, city, department, region) and the point cost. The remaining gap is pagination/interaction behavior across start_page and max_items, which the description leaves unaddressed.

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%, including a fully enumerated 'sector' with translations and documented max/min on max_items and start_page, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces the sector axis and cost-per-record; it adds no syntax or pagination semantics 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?

States a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('leboncoin's professional-stores directory') and names the filtering axis ('by activity sector') plus the fields returned. It cleanly distinguishes a directory/search tool from the sibling run_leboncoin_sellers, but never names that sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'by activity sector' implies the browsing/search use case, and the _search naming implies breadth vs. the singular run_leboncoin_sellers. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when this is preferable to run_leboncoin_locations_search or run_leboncoin_sellers, and no exclusions.

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