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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which align well with an autocomplete lookup. The description adds the key behavioral idea that this is a pre-filtering suggestion tool and enumerates supported scopes, though it does not discuss rate limits or response behavior (mitigated by the presence of an output schema).

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 front-loaded with a clear action and purpose, followed by a necessary enumeration of supported fields. The list is long but directly actionable; no filler or redundancy.

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 the input schema defining the field enum and q behavior, plus annotations establishing read-only/idempotent behavior, the description gives enough context for correct use. The only minor gap is not describing response shape or pagination, but an output schema is present.

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 covers all parameters with 100% coverage)Skip the baseline, so the description is not required to repeat them. It adds value by grouping fields into people vs company categoriesuring semantic labels (e.g., employeurs) and explicitly routing activité/métier queries to basile_activity_suggest.

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 states a specific action ('Autocomplete pour trouver les valeurs valides avant de filtrer') and enumerates the exact valid fields for people and companies. It also explicitly separates this tool from basile_activity_suggest, so an agent can immediately distinguish its purpose.

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 usage context: use this before filtering to get valid values. It also tells the agent when not to use it, pointing activité/métier queries to basile_activity_suggest.

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