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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that results are ranked by relevance, includes scoring, and describes the three postal lines per candidate. It could mention error handling or more about response structure, but for a search tool this is fairly transparent.

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 four sentences, each adding value: main purpose, alternative tool, output fields, and plan requirements. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with three parameters and no output schema. The description covers the primary use case, alternative tool, result fields, and plan tiers. It lacks explanation of 'limit' and 'details', but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use it.

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%, so the description must clarify parameters. It adds meaning to 'query' by describing it as free text (even partial), but does not explain 'limit' or 'details' at all. With only one of three parameters semantically described, the description insufficiently compensates for the schema gap.

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 the tool searches French addresses from free text and returns ranked candidates. It uses specific verb 'Recherche' and resource 'adresses françaises', and distinguishes itself from verify_address.

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?

Explicitly says 'Pour confirmer UNE adresse précise, préfère verify_address', providing an alternative for a different use case. Also notes minimum plan Discovery, giving context on subscription requirements.

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