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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns the latest public Egapro declaration including global score and 5 current indicators, plus framing of the move to 7 indicators. It also clarifies data limitations and the non-legal nature of the output.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the usage scenario and clearly states the tool's function. It is reasonably concise, though it could be slightly tighter without losing clarity. No wasted sentences.

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?

Given the specialized nature of the tool (French gender-equality index reform), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to invoke it. It covers the input, output content, and important disclaimers. No output schema is present, but the description fills the gap by detailing the return values.

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 'query' is fully described in the input schema (SIREN or company name, min 3 chars). The description repeats this information but does not add extra semantics or examples beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to simulate the impact of the 2027 French gender-equality index reform for a French employer or advisor, or to look up a company's current published index by SIREN or company name. It differentiates from siblings by focusing specifically on the Egapro index and reform.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool (when a French employer asks about the reform or wants to look up a company's index) and provides important context: it returns public data only, is an estimate for decision-support, not legal advice, and no private data.

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