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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns a list with amounts and links to fact sheets, which is useful output context. However, it does not describe pagination, sorting, or behavior when no results match. Given the annotations cover the main safety aspects, a 3 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 core purpose and then states the output. No filler or redundant information. It is appropriately concise and immediately actionable.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, the input requirement (free-text situation), and the output format (list with amounts and links). There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the agent will receive, which it does. It does not mention the optional 'categorie' parameter, but that is documented in the schema. For a search tool with only two parameters, this is sufficiently 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting both 'categorie' (with accepted values) and 'situation' (with max length). The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema, only reiterating that 'situation' is free text. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 verb 'Trouve' and the resource 'aides financières', with concrete examples (bourses, aides au logement, mobilité). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by targeting financial aids specifically, while other 'rechercher_*' tools cover articles, schools, formations, etc. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately recognizable.

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 specifies the usage context: 'correspondant à une situation décrite en texte libre', which tells the agent it expects a free-text description of a person's situation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the siblings are clearly for different resource types, so the intended use case is clear. This counts as clear context with no exclusions, matching a 4.

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