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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds useful context by naming the data source (Projet Ariane) and stating that results include links to fiches. It does not go deeper into limits, ordering, or result format, but the annotation reduces the burden.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and output. Every word contributes value, with no filler or repetition of the title.

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 search tool, the description is largely complete: it explains what is searched, the data source, and the output format (list with links). It does not describe ordering or limits, but these are not essential for basic 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 well. The description mostly restates the schema's meaning by mentioning interests and domains, without adding new format, example, or combination details.

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 action ('Trouve des métiers'), a clear resource ('métiers'), and the matching criteria ('centres d'intérêt ou un domaine'). It also signals that the output is a list of links to fiches, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like fiche_metier that likely provide individual job details.

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 implies when to use the tool: when searching for careers based on interests or a domain. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the criteria 'centres d'intérêt ou un domaine' and the list-returning behavior provide enough context to differentiate from the sibling tools.

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