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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the content shape of the response — steps, FAQ, useful phone numbers, site pages — and the bilingual fr/en behavior, which annotations do not convey.

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 purpose and situation coverage are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the bilingual note last. The long enumeration of situations is functional (it maps to the enum), though it makes the single sentence dense.

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 read-only, non-destructive static-content tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool is for, which situations it handles, and roughly what the answer contains. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are fully documented enums with a default, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the same situation list and the French/English option without adding format, fallback, or error semantics beyond the schema.

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 concrete resource — Mission Museaux's step-by-step procedure ('la marche à suivre') for a given situation — and enumerates the covered situations (chat perdu, animal trouvé, chatons, maltraitance, identification, adoption). An agent can immediately tell this returns guidance content rather than search results, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling search/lookup tools.

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?

The enumerated situations act as an effective routing map: 'use this when the user asks what to do about X.' It gives clear context but no exclusions and does not name any sibling as an alternative for adjacent needs (e.g. adoption search vs. adoption guidance).

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