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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by stating what the response contains (UAI, notation letter when it exists, link to the fiche) and the ordering rule (by match relevance). It does not discuss rate limits or pagination, so a 4 rather than 5.

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-loads the core purpose and keeps each sentence doing work (purpose, examples, filters, return content, ordering, alternative tool). Slightly long and the response-content sentence could be tighter, but there is 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the returned fields and ordering. Combined with the explicit alternative-tool routing and filter enumeration, an agent has everything needed to invoke this search 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra by giving concrete syntax examples ('collège Rennes', 'lycée professionnel Lyon') that show how to combine name and commune in the required 'recherche' field, plus naming the secteur and dispositif filters.

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 (cherche) plus the exact resource set (écoles, collèges, lycées) and the search dimensions (nom, commune, niveau). It also names the sibling tool to use for a related but different need, letting an agent distinguish it without opening another schema.

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?

Provides concrete query examples, lists the optional filters, and explicitly routes an alternative case (collèges around a location with distance) to the secteur tool with the required street number. This is clear when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else guidance.

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