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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it returns a total count, sorts most recent filings first, enumerates the returned fields, mentions conditional SIREN data, and states the quota cost. No contradictions with 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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and remains information-dense without padding. The long enumeration of return fields is somewhat heavy, but it is necessary given the absence of an output schema.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: count, ordering, fields, and cost. It does not mention error cases or empty results, but those are not essential for invoking 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%, so the schema already documents both q and limite. The description repeats the q semantics and provides examples, but adds little beyond what the schema already states; it does not discuss the limite parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Recherche') and resource ('marques déposées'), and lists the exact search keys: name, holder, or filing number. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like propecto_rechercher_societes and propecto_rechercher_marches.

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 context: use this tool to search registered trademarks by name, holder, or filing number. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the resource scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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