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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already signal a safe, open-world read; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: it uses a live external directory, filters to professionals with currently valid RGE qualification, returns results ordered by distance, and lists the exact output fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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 core search action, followed by the crucial RGE filter, output contents, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and it remains compact despite covering multiple important facets.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description usefully explains what each result contains: name, city, distance in km, qualification end date, and profile URL. With the schema covering all parameters and annotations covering the read-only/open-world nature, nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the idea of proximity and the RGE filter, but it does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides clearly for lieu, type, limite, and rayon_km.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it searches the pv-solaire-energie.com directory for French solar installers and engineering firms around a commune or postal code, sorted by distance. It clearly distinguishes this search tool from the sibling tools, which handle confirmations, quote requests, and production estimation.

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 states when to use the tool: when a user looks for a solar professional in their region, wants to check for certified installers nearby, or compares companies before requesting a quote. It gives clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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