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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral details: results are grouped by level and scores within 5 points are not differentiated. Still, it does not describe return fields, empty results, invalid sector handling, or any data limits.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful tie-breaking rule. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly: the grouping structure and the scoring nuance. The main gap is the absence of an output schema or field-level explanation, but sibling secteurs_disponibles helps supply valid parameter 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 schema description coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter 'secteur' already includes examples. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Rend') and a clear resource ('les sites publiés d'un secteur') with an explicit grouping behavior ('groupés par niveau'). It is easy to distinguish from siblings like secteurs_disponibles, which likely lists sectors rather than ranked sites.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you need a sector's published sites grouped by level. However, the description does not state when to prefer this over siblings such as secteurs_disponibles or ce_qui_manque, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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