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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying exactly what the tool returns and its data source, which is especially useful given there is no output schema. It does not address missing-slug or error behavior, but that is a minor gap for a safe lookup tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and object appear first, and the parenthetical lists the returned content economically. Every element earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter, read-only lookup with complete schema coveragechers, the description is largely adequate: it states the return sections, the source, and the required identifier. The only notable gap is that it does not explicitly instruct the agent to use rechercher_metier when the slug is unknown, which would strengthen guidance.

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%: the single required slug parameter is already well documented with an example ('infirmier, developpeur-web'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'Retourne la fiche complète d'un métier' and enumerates the contained sections (description, rémunération, marché de l'emploi, formations associées). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by resource type (métier vs école, formation, aide) and by 'fiche complète' versus search-oriented tools like rechercher_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 use case is implied rather than explicit: the slug parameter and the notion of returning a complete fiche suggest the agent should call this when it already knows the métier identifier. However, the description does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving sibling differentiation largely to inference.

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