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

With readOnlyHint=true, the tool is known to be safe, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it performs situation-based matching and returns a list with monetary amounts and links to detailed fiches. It does not overstate side effects and remains consistent with the annotation.

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. It states the action, gives examples, describes the input mode, and specifies the return value, all in an appropriately compact form.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return shape (list, amounts, links). It could optionally mention empty results or eligibility caveats, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that 'situation' is free text and gives category examples, but it does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Trouve') with a clear resource ('aides financières'), enumerates representative subtypes, and states the input (free-text situation) and output (list with amounts and links). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like fiche_aide or rechercher_metier, which target single details or job information.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when a person's situation is described in free text and matching financial aid is needed. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to an alternative, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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