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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the subject scope and the fact that it returns official URLs, but it does not disclose edge cases like behavior when no subject is provided or how results are ordered. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not enriching.

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, informative sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('The official URLs...') and then lists subjects. It is efficient and does not waste words, though the subject list makes it slightly long. The structure is logical and readable.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, the subjects it handles, and provides a usage hint. It does not mention default behavior when parameters are omitted, but since both parameters are optional and the output schema exists, this is a minor gap. Overall, the description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 50%, with only the 'sujet' parameter having a description. The tool description lists many subjects, which effectively documents what the 'sujet' parameter accepts, and the 'langue' parameter is self-explanatory via its enum. However, the description does not explicitly map parameters to their semantics beyond the list, so it adds moderate value but does not fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 function: providing official URLs of the company's website filtered by subject and language. It lists a comprehensive set of subjects, making the resource concrete, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the link-lookup tool rather than a data or action tool. The phrase 'Use it instead of guessing links' further clarifies 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?

The description explicitly tells the agent to use this tool instead of guessing links, which is a direct usage directive. It also implies it is the go-to for retrieving official page URLs by subject and language, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternative sibling tools. The guidance is clear but could be stronger by stating exclusions.

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