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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns sector identifiers and serves a filtering purpose, but does not disclose deeper behavioral traits such as ordering, pagination, or whether inactive sectors are included. This is modest added context beyond the 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 two concise sentences per language: the first states the purpose and output, the second states the exclusion and alternative. There is no filler, and the bilingual duplication is justified for the intended audience.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (sectors with identifiers) and when to use it (filtering on a whole sector). It also routes the agent to the correct sibling for simpler questions. Nothing critical 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so schema coverage is complete. No parameter explanation is needed; the description confirms this is a parameterless listing tool and expresses its intended use.

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 uses the specific verb 'Liste' with the resource 'secteurs d'activité du référentiel des métiers', states that identifiers are included, and explicitly distinguishes itself from search_jobs. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 says the tool is for filtering a search on a whole sector, and explicitly warns it is not needed for simple thematic questions, pointing to search_jobs as the alternative that already searches sector labels. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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