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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the closed-exam filtering default and an explicit list of returned fields. It stops short of describing result ordering or how many pages are typically available.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, and the scoping default is front-loaded before the return-value list and the cross-tool hint. Every sentence conveys information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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, listing the returned fields (grade, employer, posts, deadline, salary, both URLs) is exactly the missing piece the description supplies, and the include_closed default is stated. Minor gaps remain around pagination totals and result ordering, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 has its own description including defaults and ranges, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's note about list_filters for diploma/region values largely restates what the schema fields already say, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search Moroccan public-sector recruitment exams (concours)') and adds a scoping qualifier ('with the website's own filters') that separates it from a raw fetch. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_concours (detail fetch) or search_exam_papers, so full sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

It states the default inclusion policy ('Open exams only unless include_closed is true') and routes to the sibling list_filters for exact diploma and region values. That is clear context plus one explicit alternative, but no guidance on when to prefer get_concours for a single exam or when to use search_exam_papers.

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