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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the domain restriction to cats and dogs, and the language negotiation rule (French default, English on request).

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by return content, scope limits and language handling. No filler, though the enumerated return fields are somewhat list-like.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values; scope, language behavior and the omit-to-list mode are all covered. Only the relationship to the breed-recognition sibling is left unstated.

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%, so all four parameters (espece, langue, limite, recherche) are already fully documented with enums, defaults and bounds. The description's language note roughly restates the langue field, adding little beyond the schema baseline.

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 and resource — looking up dog and cat breeds in Mission Museaux's directory — plus the two retrieval modes (name search, most-common listing). Scope limits ('Dogs and cats only') help separate it from the photo-based sibling reconnaitre_race, though that sibling is never named.

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?

'Use it to check a breed name' gives one implied use case but no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives. The agent must infer that reconnaitre_race (likely visual identification) is the other option.

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