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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds real behavioral context: results are restricted to professionals whose RGE qualification is still valid today, ordered by increasing distance, and it lists the returned fields (name, city, distance in km, qualification end date, profile URL). It even explains the regulatory stakes of the RGE filter (EDF OA surplus sale, 5.5% VAT). No pagination or rate-limit note, and no output schema exists to cover the return shape, but the description carries it well.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences that go from what is searched, to the RGE filter and return fields, to when to use it. The regulatory parenthetical about TVA 5.5% and the end of the autoconsumption prime is tangential but arguably supports agent reasoning about RGE relevance; it is the only expendable material.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned fields, the filtering rule, the ordering and the data source, which is everything an agent needs to call it and interpret results. The tool is a read-only search with full parameter documentation, so nothing material is missing.

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% and each parameter already carries an inline description with examples, enum meanings and defaults. The description only restates the 'commune or postal code' input and adds the default sort, so it does not meaningfully exceed what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 (search a directory of photovoltaic installers and engineering firms around a commune/postal code), names the source directory, the sort order (distance ascending) and the RGE-validity filter. An agent can distinguish it from demander_devis or estimer_production_solaire 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?

Explicitly lists three triggering situations: finding a local solar professional, checking whether certified installers exist nearby, or comparing companies before asking for a quote. The phrase 'avant de demander un devis' implicitly points to the demander_devis handoff, but no sibling is named as an exclusion, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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