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

Annotations already cover the read-only and non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds a useful data-source context ('données Projet Ariane') and indicates the result is a list, but it does not disclose output format, pagination, or any special query behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and object, then adds the scoping condition and data source. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 read-only list tool with well-described parameters, the description plus schema is largely sufficient. The main gap is that it does not explicitly state that at least one of metier or domaine should be used, and it does not describe the shape of the returned list, though 'Liste' implies a list of diplomas and formations.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by framing metier and domaine as alternative search dimensions ('un métier donné ou à un domaine'), which clarifies the intended relationship between the two optional parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Liste'), names the resource ('diplômes et formations'), and clearly scopes the result to a given métier or domaine. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rechercher_formation and fiche_formation, which target formation lookup or detail rather than mapping a job/domain to training paths.

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 gives a clear usage context: use it to discover diplomas and formations for a target job or professional field. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of alternatives like rechercher_formation or fiche_formation, and no clarification about whether at least one parameter must be provided.

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