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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the result set is sorted by total estimated cost defined as service price plus legal fees, and each entry carries conditions, lead times, promotions, a verification date and a link. It does not mention the default page size behaviour beyond the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, second sentence listing returned fields. No padding or repetition of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the sort key, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. Only the truncation/limit semantics of the result set are left implicit.

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% (both params documented, enum enumerated), so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that legal_form drives the comparison and says nothing about max_results or the default of 10 that the schema already carries.

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 specific verb and resource ('Compare les offres des prestataires de création d'entreprise') plus the scoping unit (a legal form) and the sort order. It is clearly distinguishable from list_legal_forms and get_provider, though it never names the siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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 phrase 'pour une forme juridique' implies a legal_form identifier is needed, but there is no statement of when to call this versus list_legal_forms or get_provider, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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