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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: discloses the total-count cap (5 000), the nearest-deadline sort, description truncation to 300 characters, source attribution with original links, and the quota cost (1 unit, plus 1 monthly 'marchés' unit with an API key). This is rich behavioral disclosure an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then filters, then returns, then pagination and cost. Every clause carries information, though the single long paragraph could be more scannable with explicit separation of filters versus returns.

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, the description fully documents the return shape (id, intitulé, acheteur, pays, CPV, montant, date limite, date de publication, nature, source, liens) and the pagination/cost model. For a 6-parameter search tool with an optional-only schema, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value beyond the schema by describing the sort order (tri par date limite la plus proche) and reinforcing the meaning of ouverts, limite, and decalage in context. It largely mirrors the schema, so it does not fully reach 5.

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 (Rechercher) and resource (avis de marchés publics), specifying the scope (appels d'offres, attributions) and that results are aggregated from public sources. It also names the sibling it feeds into (id à passer à propecto_marche), letting an agent distinguish it from the other propecto_* tools.

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?

Clear operational context: filters for keyword, country, open notices, and department, plus a note that the returned id is used with propecto_marche. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as propecto_marches_remportes, so it falls just short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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