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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the baseline safety profile is known. The description adds useful context about the possible levels of aggregation (national, sector, top sectors) but does not disclose output format, pagination, or other behavioral details. This is adequate given the annotations but not rich.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the tool's identity and immediately lists the available scopes. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core purpose and scope options but leaves the exact parameter encoding (e.g., what value triggers 'top sectors') and expected output format unspecified. Since there is no output schema, more explicit parameter usage would improve completeness.

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?

The schema provides no description for the 'secteur' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does imply that the parameter selects between national, sector, or top exposed sectors, but it does not specify how to encode 'top sectors' or whether empty means national. This partial guidance earns a mid-range score.

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 clearly identifies a specific resource ('Barometre d'exposition structurelle cle-personne') and its scope options (national, sector, top sectors), sourced from Insee 2023. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not contrast with sibling tools such as benchmark_sectoriel, so it is clear but not strongly differentiated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the context from the name and description.

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