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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds context about the data content, including conditional bac results for lycées and the Projet Ariane data source. However, it does not mention potential limitations, error conditions, or rate limits, which are minor given the read-only nature.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action and efficiently lists the types of data returned. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the types of data returned (campus, addresses, formations, selectivity, bac results). It also hints at conditional content for lycées. While it could specify the structure more, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'slug', which is well-documented in the schema as the URL identifier returned by rechercher_ecole. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline.

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 returns the fiche of an establishment and enumerates its content: campus, addresses, formations with Parcoursup selectivity, and bac results for a lycée. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fiche_formation and fiche_metier.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The input schema's parameter description mentions the slug is returned by rechercher_ecole, implying a workflow, but this is not in the tool description itself. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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