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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns (ranking details, link to school sheet) and its data source, which helps an agent understand the output without needing to call it. It does not contradict annotations and adds value beyond the structured fields, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Palmarès des lycées... et des collèges') and then efficiently lists scope and content. There is no redundancy or fluff; every clause adds information. It is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 five parameters, one required, with 100% schema coverage and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, scope, content of the result, and data source, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could explicitly state that the output is a list of establishments, but that is implied by 'palmarès' and the listed fields. Given the read-only nature and schema richness, this is nearly complete.

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 five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description mentions the scope (national, department, city) which maps to parameters but does not add syntax or semantics beyond the schema's existing descriptions (e.g., precedence, defaults). Thus a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides rankings ('Palmarès') of high schools and middle schools, with specific content (rank, success rate, added value, link to school sheet) and scope (national, department, city). It names the data source (DEPP/Projet Ariane) and distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by focusing on rankings rather than lookup.

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 description clearly implies when to use it (when a ranking of schools is needed) and provides context about the scope options (national, department, city). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools like rechercher_ecole. This is a clear context without exclusions, earning a 4.

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