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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about the returned payload (the association, the cost participation, and the page where the adoption request is made), which matters since there is no output schema, but it omits pagination/limit behavior.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by a compact bilingual line. It is a slightly run-on enumeration of returned fields but every clause carries information and 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?

For a 7-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of explaining what each result contains (association, cost, page URL for the request). It covers species and geography adequately; the main gap is pagination/limit semantics.

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 71%, with espece and limite undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by naming the species ('chats et chiens') and the geographic scope (commune vs whole country), but adds little on the limit or coordinate parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific resource (cats and dogs for adoption in France) and its scope (Mission Museaux plus other associations, around a commune or nationwide). It clearly conveys what an agent gets back, but the action verb is only implied via the name and it does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like chercher_annonces.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The geographic framing ('autour d'une commune ou dans tout le pays') implies context, but with overlapping siblings such as chercher_annonces and voir_annonce, the agent is left to infer which tool to pick.

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