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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: pagination caps (10 per page, 5 pages max), result ordering (DIKOO-registered with open calendars first, then national directory), and the fallback 'disponiblesEnVisio' list.

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?

Front-loaded and logically ordered, but the entire content is duplicated verbatim in French and English, doubling the token footprint with no added information for the agent. The redundancy means not every sentence earns its place.

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 compensates well by naming the key result fields ('url', 'lienRendezVous'), the pagination behavior, the fallback result list, and the legal-advice disclaimer. It stops short of explaining how optional filters combine or result ordering precedence beyond the DIKOO-first rule.

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 all seven parameters (including the lieu/ville alias) are already documented, and the description merely restates the filter dimensions (city/postal code, practice area, mode, language, availability). No additional syntax or combination rules are added, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Recherche d'avocats en France') plus the filter dimensions and scope (public paginated profiles). It is clearly distinct from siblings like fiche_avocat or verifier_avocat in intent, though it never names a sibling to disambiguate against.

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?

Gives one concrete usage rule — when a location has no bookable lawyer, the response surfaces 'disponiblesEnVisio' nationwide results — which is actionable. However, it never states when to prefer this over fiche_avocat, verifier_avocat, orienter_besoin or creneaux_disponibles, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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