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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. Beyond that, the description adds meaningful context: the result applies to this address only, only published school-map territories are covered, the address queries the Base adresse nationale, and the site does not retain it.

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 main purpose and then adds useful scoping, output, coverage, authority-confirmation, and privacy details. It is somewhat dense but every sentence contributes relevant context.

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?

For a single-parameter, open-world lookup with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what is returned, the address-level scope, coverage limits, confirmation authority, and address handling. An agent has enough information to call it 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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including the format (number, street, city or postal code) and the address-specific scope. The description adds the BAN query and non-retention context, but the core parameter semantics are already supplied by 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Trouve le collège public de secteur d'une adresse'. It clearly distinguishes an address-level sector lookup from a commune-level lookup, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools lire_fiche and trouver_etablissement.

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?

Usage is implied by the stated scope and by the caveat that only territories with a published school map are covered. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the sibling tools trouver_etablissement or lire_fiche.

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