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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's added value is provenance and output shape: it discloses that the catalogue tracks 50+ SCPI with figures taken from official bulletins and that the call returns one row per SCPI with price, distribution rate, occupancy rate and a link to the detail sheet. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what an empty result looks like.

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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the resource and filter axes, the second defines the return shape. Front-loaded and free of filler, with only the parenthetical about catalogue size and data provenance adding slight bulk.

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 read-only, no-output-schema search tool the description supplies what an agent most needs: what can be filtered, where the data comes from, and what each returned row contains. The only material gap is the absent routing guidance relative to the five sibling tools and the mismatch around "catégorie".

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 schema already documents all five parameters including defaults and the 60-result cap; the baseline of 3 applies. The description confirms that the text search spans name, manager and sector, but it also lists "catégorie" as a filter axis when no category parameter exists, adding mild ambiguity rather than clarity for that field.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Filtre les SCPI du catalogue SCPI Select") and enumerates the available filter axes plus the shape of a result row, so an agent knows this is a filtered catalogue listing. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings such as comparer_scpi or fiche_scpi, leaving the differentiation to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the enumerated filters suggest an agent should call this when it wants to shortlist SCPI matching criteria. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over fiche_scpi (detail on one SCPI) or comparer_scpi (side-by-side comparison), and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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