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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the double opt-in flow: an e-mail is sent and nothing is active until the recipient clicks. That is genuinely useful context an agent cannot get from the structured fields. It does not say what a repeat call does, though idempotentHint=false covers part of that.

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?

Two short sentences: the mechanism first, then the consent constraint. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the most important caveat is front-loaded.

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 nine-parameter, non-read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: a confirmation step gates activation and user consent is mandatory. Minor gaps remain around the return value and duplicate handling, but nothing needed to invoke it safely 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 all nine parameters (lieu, mots, contrats, rayon_km, departement, etc.) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond echoing that the address must come from the user, which the email property description already says.

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 names a concrete action (sending a confirmation e-mail and requiring a click before anything is activated), but it never states the actual artifact being created — an alert on job-search criteria (lieu, mots, contrats). The resource is only recoverable from the name/title, so the purpose is implied rather than stated.

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?

"À n'utiliser que si l'utilisateur le demande et donne son adresse" gives an explicit precondition and an implicit when-not (do not use proactively or with an address the user did not supply). No alternative sibling is named, but chercher_offres and voir_offre serve different intents, so the routing risk is low.

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