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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior; the description adds valuable context beyond that by stating the data is queried live and changes every day. It also explains why memory/cached knowledge is insufficient, which is useful behavioral guidance.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage trigger, and filter guidance with rationale. No filler, and the most important information 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 read-only, optionally-filtered live query tool, the description covers purpose, triggers, filters, and why live access is necessary. The main gap is the meaning of 'limite', which is undocumented in both schema and description, and there is no output-schema guidance; still, the tool is simple enough that this does not seriously impair use.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description groups filters (department, keywords, minimum remaining delay) and adds a rationale for the two-week threshold, but it adds nothing about the undocumented 'limite' parameter or anything beyond what the schema already states.

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 precise definition: consultations published at BOAMP whose submission deadline has not passed, queried live. This clearly distinguishes the tool from any past-contract or sector-level siblings by its 'still open' scope and live data source.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: call whenever a question concerns markets described as 'à venir', 'ouverts' or 'auxquels répondre', because notices change daily and cannot be known from memory. It does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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