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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations do not: the payload includes per-attribute counts of how many businesses filled them, and omitting the category returns a shared/common layer rather than an error or everything. It does not disclose pagination or result size, which is a minor remaining gap for a read-only enumeration.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose, then the downstream action, then the no-argument case — a logical order for an agent reading top-down. The French and English versions are near-duplicates, which is justified for a bilingual user base but does add length; otherwise there is little wasted wording.

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, the description does the job of describing the return: attribute names organized by family plus fill counts. Given a single optional parameter and rich annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly and use the result. The one gap is that it does not show the identifier format an agent must pass to exige/prefere, which matters for the handoff it prescribes.

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 coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline because it explains what the optionality actually means semantically — leaving categorie out yields the common layer across categories, a distinction the schema (0 required parameters) does not convey. The enum values themselves are only described by the schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 names the specific resource (filterable attributes for a business category, with fill counts per attribute) and lists the covered families (techniques, hygiène, langues, accès, genres des pros, paiement, dossiers CNESST/SAAQ). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling it feeds into by naming chercher_places and its exige/prefere slots, so an agent knows this is a discovery tool rather than a search tool.

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?

It gives a clear workflow: call this, then pass the results into exige or prefere of chercher_places. It also explains the no-argument case ("Sans catégorie : la couche commune"), which is the key branching decision for this tool. It stops short of stating when not to call it (e.g., when attribute slugs are already known), so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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