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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scale context ('about 780 in France'), consistent with a closed-world set, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what happens when both city and region are supplied.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and information-dense, but the second sentence about candidates visiting agencies does not help an agent invoke the tool and could be cut without loss.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema and three well-documented optional parameters, the description covers the resource, its scope, and the returned fields (address, specialties). The main residual gap is combining city and region and result ordering.

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 100%, so city, region, and limit are already fully documented with examples and bounds. The description only mirrors the town/region concepts and adds no format or combination guidance (e.g., city vs region precedence), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb-and-resource: retrieving Actual group employment agencies with address and specialties, filtered by town or region. It is clearly distinguishable from the job-offer siblings (get_offer, search_offers), though it never explicitly names them.

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 second sentence describes what candidates might do (visit or call for advice/registration), which is end-user context rather than agent guidance. There is no statement of when to call this tool versus search_offers or get_offer, and no prerequisites.

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