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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: results are relevance-ranked, include Parcoursup access rates, provide links to detail sheets, and come from the Projet Ariane dataset. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 main action and resource, then efficiently adds search dimensions, output ranking, and data provenance. Every element contributes useful, non-redundant information.

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 search tool with a 100% documented schema and no output schema, the description adequately explains the main results: ranked formations, Parcoursup access rates, and links to detail sheets. It does not explicitly delineate the boundary with sibling tools like rechercher_ecole, but the overall context is sufficient for correct tool selection and 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 the baseline is 3 even with no extra parameter detail in the description. The description mentions filtering by 'intitulé, ville, niveau ou type', which maps to the schema properties, but it adds no syntax, value formats, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 is action-specific: 'Trouve des formations' names the verb and resource, enumerates relevant formation types, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rechercher_ecole and rechercher_metier. It provides the key search dimensions and output characteristics, so an agent can clearly identify what this tool does.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: searching for formations by keyword, city, level, or type. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving some boundary inference to the agent, but the sibling list and the description's specificity make the intended use fairly obvious.

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