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

Beyond the annotations, which already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, the description adds that no account or key is required. It also discloses the result limit behavior: 10 results by default, up to 20, with no pagination. It describes the fallback message when nothing matches, which helps the agent recover correctly.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then routes the agent to sibling tools in a compact, semicolon-separated structure. The return format and fallback behavior are included without unnecessary filler. Every sentence contributes to correct tool selection or invocation.

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, so the description appropriately explains the return format: brand, profile URL, referral code, benefits for both parties, categories, and verification date. It also covers the no-results case and access constraints. This is complete for a two-parameter read-only search tool.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces the query semantics with examples such as brand name, partial name, or keyword, and repeats the limit behavior. It does not add substantially new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 states a specific verb and resource: searching verified referral offers in the Meilleur Code Parrainage directory from a brand name or keyword. It explicitly distinguishes this search tool from siblings such as detail_offre, offres_par_categorie, and meilleures_offres. An agent can understand its role without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this first when the brand is uncertain or misspelled, or when the need is expressed as keywords. It also names the alternatives and the conditions that select them: detail_offre for a known brand, offres_par_categorie for browsing a sector, and meilleures_offres for the monthly selection.

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