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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, and open-world annotations, the description adds behavior: it matches by meaning, accepts natural-language questions, searches the entire site, and returns pages with their addresses. This gives a useful picture of what the tool does without contradicting 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?

Three sentences, all substantive: the scope and mechanism, realistic usage examples, and a concrete invocation guideline. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple two-parameter read-only search tool. It explains what the tool returns, how the question should be phrased, and when to use it. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the mention that pages and addresses are returned.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces that the question is in plain language and that results are pages, but it does not add significant detail beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair: search by meaning across all of gentry.fr and return relevant pages with their address. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing semantic search over exact address lookup, which separates it from cherche_adresse.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool first: when uncertain whether gentry covers a topic, before concluding the data does not exist. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the guidance is clear enough for routing.

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