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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does add real value by disclosing the shape of each returned item, which the missing output schema would otherwise leave unknown. However, it says nothing about ordering, pagination, result volume, or whether the counts are always computed — behavior an agent needs before invoking it.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource comes first and the payload description follows. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly a consequence of omitted information rather than deliberate minimalism.

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?

For a simple single-parameter list tool with no output schema, disclosing the returned fields is the right instinct, but the one parameter is left unexplained and no usage context is given. Adequate at a glance, incomplete for confident invocation.

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 single parameter include_counts has 0% schema description coverage and no default value documented. Worse, the description implies the count of active associations is always part of the result, which leaves the role of include_counts entirely ambiguous rather than explained.

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 gives a specific verb ('Liste') and a specific resource ('les causes Caritatif'), and enumerates the returned fields (slug, libellé, nombre d'associations actives, URL du classement). This clearly separates it from the NGO- and guide-oriented siblings, although it never explicitly names an alternative 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether this is the entry point for discovering causes before calling get_ngo or top_ngos, nor whether it is exhaustive or filtered. The only implicit signal is that it is a listing tool.

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