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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety and repeat-call profile is covered structurally. The description's added value is disclosing the breadth of the returned payload (exam results across four sessions, IPS, rankings, Parcoursup formations), which helps an agent anticipate cost/response size. It does not address data freshness, coverage gaps, or error behavior for an invalid UAI.

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?

A single sentence with the identifying mechanism front-loaded ('Un établissement par son UAI'), followed by a dense field inventory. Every listed item is informative about the payload, though the run-on list is longer than strictly needed and could have been trimmed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing return content — and it does so comprehensively, covering identity, demographics, performance indicators, specialties, Parcoursup offerings and contact. What remains thin is operational detail: no statement on what happens for an unknown UAI, missing-data handling, or response shape.

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 schema already documents the UAI format with a pattern and example (0942434K). The description adds nothing beyond 'par son UAI', so it neither clarifies nor compensates for anything. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb+resource: it returns a single school record identified by its UAI, and it enumerates the fields returned (nature, statut, effectifs, IPS, exam results, valeur ajoutée, formations Parcoursup, contact). An agent can tell this is a single-entity lookup rather than a list. However, it never names or contrasts the siblings (get_french_commune_schools, get_french_school_ranking, get_french_school_sectors), and its mention of 'communes de son secteur' overlaps conceptually with the sectors tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The only implicit cue is 'par son UAI', which suggests the tool requires a known identifier, but the description never says to use this when you already have a UAI versus using the commune-based sibling when you do not. Usage must be entirely inferred from the sibling names.

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