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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: it is advisory-only (no legal advice), takes a short anonymized description, and returns named practice areas plus an explanation and a search link. Given annotations, this is solid additional context.

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?

Bilingual, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the scope limitation in a single tight clause. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description names the three returned elements (practice areas, a 2-3 sentence explanation, a dikoo.fr search link), which is exactly what the agent needs. It covers scope, input constraints and output shape. Slightly less complete on routing logic versus siblings, but strong overall.

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 fully documents the single 'besoin' parameter including length bounds and the no-personal-data constraint. The description repeats the same no-personal-data caveat, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('indique les spécialités d'avocat pertinentes') from a short problem description, and explicitly delimits what it is not ('l'outil nomme des spécialités, il ne répond pas sur le fond'). Distinguishable from siblings like rechercher_avocats, which implies a search over a directory rather than a routing/classification of a need.

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 context is given: short description, no personal data. The 'Aucun conseil juridique' framing tells the agent what this tool is not for. However, no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g. vs rechercher_avocats for an already-known specialty) is provided.

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