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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds value on result content (carte scolaire publiée, seule école publique, secteur non publié) but says nothing about error handling, address-not-found behavior, or latency/limits, which are the traits annotations do not cover.

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 (sector establishments, level by level) before the supporting detail, and the sibling-routing note closes it cleanly. Dense, but each clause carries content rather than 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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly (per-level sector, nearby public, private under contract, post-bac/Parcoursup). Only failure/edge-case behavior is left unstated, a minor gap for a single-parameter read tool.

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% with a single, well-documented address parameter that even includes an example. The description adds no syntax, format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (sector establishments for a French address), scoped per level (maternelle/élémentaire, collège, lycée), and enumerates what the result contains. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_french_commune_schools by noting a commune has no sector, so an agent can pick between them without opening a 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?

Gives a clear routing rule: for a commune rather than an address, use get_french_commune_schools. That is a real when-to-use-this-vs-alternative statement. It stops short of stating exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. address must be a valid French address, what happens on failure).

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