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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by spelling out the returned payload (FCI standard, origin, live listing and adoptable-animal counts, page address) in the absence of an output schema, though it says nothing about rate limits or how the counts are derived.

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?

Each language is a single dense sentence that front-loads the resource name, with no filler. The full bilingual duplication doubles the length, but that is a defensible choice for a fr/en service and no sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description does its job on return values by enumerating the fields per breed, and annotations cover the safety profile. It remains incomplete on parameters (espece, limite undocumented anywhere), on result-limit/pagination behavior, and on when to prefer this tool over reconnaitre_race for breed 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 only 50%: 'espece' and 'limite' carry no schema descriptions. The description never explains any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the gap; the mention of 'French and English' and 'dog and cat' only loosely gestures at 'langue' and 'espece' and says nothing about the 1–30 result cap on 'limite'.

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 (Mission Museaux dog and cat breed directory) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: FR/EN names, alternate names, FCI standard, origin, listing/adoption counts, and the breed page URL. This is clearly distinct from siblings like reconnaitre_race (photo identification) or chercher_annonces (listing search), although no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the browse/lookup tool for breed reference data, and the 'recherche' schema note hints at partial-name lookup, but the description itself gives no when-to-use, when-not, or routing guidance against reconnaitre_race or chercher_annonces.

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