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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: results are capped at 5,000, descriptions are truncated to 300 characters, sorting is by nearest deadline, each notice includes source and link, and the call costs 1 quota unit. There is no contradiction with 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 long but dense and logically ordered: purpose, filters, sorting, output, pagination, cost. Every clause earns its place given the number of filters and output fields. It is not bloated, though it slightly restates schema examples.

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 response: total count, per-notice fields, id handoff to propecto_marche, description truncation, and pagination. Combined with the read-only annotation, sorting rule, and quota cost, an agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter already has its own description and examples. The tool description largely restates the same filter semantics and examples, so it adds no new per-parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully handles parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb ('Recherche') and resource ('avis de marchés publics'), and clarifies that it aggregates notices from public sources. It also distinguishes itself by noting the returned 'id' is to be passed to propecto_marche, separating it from the detail-lookup sibling. The filter list and return fields reinforce its role as a search tool.

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 gives clear operational context: supported filters, sorting, pagination, and a pointer to propecto_marche for follow-up on a returned id. It does not explicitly contrast with other search siblings such as propecto_marches_remportes or propecto_rechercher_societes, so it falls short of an explicit when-not/alternatives statement.

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