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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive lookup, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a useful inventory of what comes back (mandatory/recommended/forbidden mentions, tips, common mistakes, official sources), but says nothing about coverage limits (e.g. behaviour for an unknown or non-French profession slug) or response size.

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 front-loaded sentence that begins with the returned resource and then layers the detail, with no filler or repetition. The parenthetical enumeration of categories is slightly dense but every clause carries information about the payload.

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?

With no output schema and only one required parameter, the description sensibly carries the burden of describing the returned content, which it does across six named categories. The remaining gap is edge-case behaviour (invalid slug, professions outside France), which an agent would want before calling.

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% and the single parameter already documents itself as a slug from list_professions with an example ('avocat'). The description adds only the phrase 'for a given profession', which restates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns what a French professional must, should and must not put in an email signature') and enumerates the returned categories, so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It does not, however, contrast itself with any sibling tool such as generate_email_signature or list_professions, leaving 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 caller supplies a profession slug and receives the applicable rules. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of the natural precursor step (list_professions) or the downstream consumer (generate_email_signature), and no exclusions. The schema's reference to list_professions is the only workflow hint, and it lives outside the description.

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