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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description goes well beyond them, disclosing that Isoligne decides publication after notifying each company, that client status affects neither inclusion nor order, and that scores within 5 points are not separated. It omits only the shape of what is returned.

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?

Four tight sentences with the output behavior front-loaded and no filler. The Isoligne sentence is arguably marginal but it carries real inclusion semantics, so it 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?

With one required parameter and no output schema, the description must carry the return semantics, and it does explain grouping by level and score-based ordering with tie handling. What is missing is the actual structure of a returned entry (site fields, score field), which the agent must still infer.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains it is a sector key from secteurs_disponibles with an example. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns a sector's published sites, grouped by level and ordered by score. It also pins the scope (published sites only, not the whole market). It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like secteurs_disponibles, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the ranking covers published sites only, which tells the agent this is not a market-wide listing. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling tool that supplies the sector key.

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