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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behaviour beyond that: it discloses the return shape (steps, FAQ and links), a geographic scope limitation (France), and the language contract (accepts FR or EN, replies in French, or English with langue 'en'). The France-only limitation in particular is not derivable from any structured field.

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?

Three densely packed sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the use condition before the return/locale detail. Slight redundancy with the schema's enum list, but nothing is padded or wasted.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still summarises them (steps, FAQ, links). Coverage of situations, locale and scope is complete enough to invoke correctly; the only missing element is an explicit boundary against trouver_aide_locale for local-resource questions.

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 carry rich enum descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's language sentence largely echoes what the 'langue' schema description already states ('A request written in English is answered in English even without it'), adding little new meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource, then enumerates the exact nine situations it covers (lost pet, found animal, kittens, injured animal, stray cats, mistreatment, identification, adoption), making it unmistakably distinct from the sibling search tools (chercher_adoptions, chercher_annonces, trouver_aide_locale). An agent can route between 'give me advice' and 'search listings' without opening any 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?

'Use it when someone asks what to do' gives a clear triggering condition tied to user intent rather than keywords. It does not name an explicit alternative or exclusion among siblings (e.g. trouver_aide_locale for geographic/local resources), so it falls short of a 5, but the context is unambiguous.

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