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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a read-only lookup. It adds useful behavioral context: results are limited to diplomas/formations that give access to the requested métier/domaine and are based on Projet Ariane data. No destructive side effects or hidden mutation behavior are suggested.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and adds the data source at the end with no filler. Every word 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 two-parameter read-only tool with 100% schema coverage, the description provides the key invocation context: it searches by either métier or domaine and returns formation/diploma options. It does not explicitly state what happens if no parameters are provided, but this is a minor gap given the simple schema and no output complexity.

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 metier and domaine are already self-explanatory. The description adds the 'or' relationship between the two filters, but it does not explain formats, parameter combinations, or whether at least one parameter is expected.

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 ('Liste') and resource ('diplômes et formations'), with a clear scope: access to a given job or domain, sourced from Projet Ariane. It reads as a distinct offering from sibling tools like fiche_metier and 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 description implies the tool is for answering how/where to train for a given job by listing diplomas and formations, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over rechercher_metier or fiche_metier, nor any exclusions. Usage context must be inferred rather than spelled out.

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