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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the detailed return fields (title, editor, year, price, pages, link, key points, regulatory obligations) and explicitly states the behavior for sectors without a distinct guide (flagged). This gives the agent a clear understanding of the tool's outputs and edge-case handling, though it does not mention error handling or response format.

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, starting with the core purpose in French, followed by a concise English summary. It is front-loaded with the essential information and includes detailed return fields without unnecessary verbosity. The bilingual text adds slight redundancy but remains efficient and informative.

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 description is complete for a single-parameter tool with no output schema. It enumerates all returned fields, explains the regulatory link, and addresses edge cases (sectors without a dedicated guide). The bilingual summary reinforces key points. No additional information is needed for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'secteur' parameter, listing all allowed values. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond restating that it applies to French food-trade sectors. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns the official Good Hygiene Practice Guide (GBPH) reference for a French food-trade sector. It specifies the exact verb ('Retourne la référence') and resource (GBPH officiel), and lists the fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on HACCP actions, temperatures, or regulatory obligations.

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 usage for retrieving the official guide reference for a sector, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does note that sectors without a distinct validated guide are flagged, which gives context on expected results. However, there is no direct exclusion statement or comparison with sibling tools.

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