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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it names the data source (Projet Ariane) and the return shape (list with links to fiches), though it does not discuss limits or empty-result behavior.

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 packs in the action, criteria, source, and output shape efficiently, and the parenthetical data-source note 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 read-only search tool with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete: purpose, source, and output are all covered. It could be more explicit about whether both criteria can be combined and what fields appear in the returned list, but nothing essential to invocation is missing.

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 of 3 applies even though the description adds little parameter detail. The description restates the two criteria but does not clarify how required 'interets' and optional 'domaine' combine; 'ou' could imply domain-only searching even though 'interets' is required.

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 states a specific verb ('Trouve'), a target resource ('métiers'), and the matching criteria ('centres d'intérêt ou un domaine'), then specifies the output as a list with links to fiches. This clearly differentiates it from sibling fiche_metier, which presumably returns a single job sheet.

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 search context: use it to discover careers from interests or a domain, and expect a list back. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to route a broad career-search query here.

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