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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that this is advisory guidance about filings/deadlines/documents and not a replacement for the official filing checklist. It does not describe output format or limitations such as legal-advice disclaimers, but the key trust boundary is disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loads the trigger, then adds a clear exclusion. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 one fully documented enum parameter, no output schema, and rich read-only annotations, the description supplies enough context for correct invocation: when to call it, what topics it covers, and the key limitation against treating it as the official checklist. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and use it appropriately.

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% and the single formality parameter has a large enum plus its own description: 'Formality, as returned by which_legal_notice.' The tool description adds only contextual linkage ('that formality') and no additional syntax, enum guidance, or formatting beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

The description states a specific scope: guidance after a French legal notice, including guichet unique/INPI filing, deadlines, BODACC registry activity, and documents for the formality. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as which_legal_notice and get_bodacc_notice by focusing on procedural next steps rather than notice retrieval or company lookup.

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 gives an explicit trigger: the user has published or is about to publish a legal notice and asks what comes next. It also gives a clear exclusion: do not use as a substitute for the official checklist shown by the one-stop shop. It lacks an explicit sibling-routing sentence such as 'use which_legal_notice first to obtain the formality,' though the parameter description implies that prerequisite.

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