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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context: case/accent-insensitive matching, expected result volume ('usually a few'), and the meaning of an empty list ('store is not tracked yet'). It omits ranking order of multiple matches and any rate/limit notes, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then return shape, and every sentence carries information since there is no output schema. The return-field enumeration is long but justified; a slightly tighter grouping of the field list would earn a 5.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (requete, marchands, rang, ex_aequo, secteur, domaine, nom, note, nombre_avis, dernier_test, test_ancien, page) and defining the empty-result case. That is everything an agent needs to call it and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds matching semantics that the schema does not (partial match, case and accents ignored, 'nocibe'/'sezane'-style examples) and clarifies the scope of 'requete'. It says nothing extra about the 'langue' parameter beyond what the schema already explains.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('find a tracked French store by part of its NAME or DOMAIN') with matching scope (case/accent insensitive, all sectors). It is clearly separable from the two siblings it names, trouver_marchands (criteria-based discovery) and consulter_marchand (domain lookup).

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 it ('user names a store but you do not know its exact domain'), what to do next ('then call consulter_marchand with the domain found'), and which sibling to use instead for criteria-based discovery. No inference left to the agent.

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