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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), yet the description adds the 20-result cap and enumerates the returned flags (AcceptsNewPatientsOnline, IsQueueListActive, QueueListUrl), which is real value since no output schema exists. It does not explain what happens when neither ville nor code_postal is supplied, nor any error behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the sibling routing, return shape, and next step. The heavy use of parentheticals makes it slightly cramped, but no sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the key response fields and the result cap, and it links to the natural next tool call. Its only gap is the absence of guidance when no location filter is provided, which matters for a zero-required-parameter tool.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters including the optionality relationship between ville and code_postal. The description only restates that the search is by city or postal code and never mentions the 'nom' filter, adding essentially nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Recherche des masseurs-kinésithérapeutes inscrits sur MonRdvKiné (France)'), names the search keys (ville / code postal) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling rechercher_kines_autour for GPS-based lookup. An agent can route between the two search tools without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit exclusion rule ('avec des coordonnées GPS, utiliser rechercher_kines_autour') and an explicit follow-up step ('Utiliser ensuite disponibilites_nouveau_patient avec PhysicianId'). It also caps expectations with 'Renvoie au plus 20 praticiens', so the agent knows not to expect exhaustive results.

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