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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so this is known to be a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by naming the data sources (France Travail, La Bonne Alternance, Projet Ariane) and specifying that only active offers are returned, but it does not disclose behaviors like rate limits or external-service dependency.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then packs sources, search criteria, and returned fields without filler. Every clause earns its place and the description remains easy to parse.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the result attributes: contract type, salary, date, and offer link. It does not describe response formatting, pagination, or error behavior, but for a simple read-only search tool with fully documented parameters, this is sufficient.

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 each parameter already has meaningful documentation. The description only restates that searching works by métier or mot-clé and by ville, adding no syntax, format, or default details beyond the schema, which matches the baseline.

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 identifies the verb and resource: it finds active job and apprenticeship offers from named sources by trade or keyword and city. It also distinguishes this from sibling search tools such as rechercher_metier or rechercher_formation, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 concrete usage context: search by métier or mot-clé plus ville, with contract, salary, date, and link fields. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name an alternative sibling, but the criteria are clear enough to select this tool for job/alternance offer searches.

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