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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety/open-world profile is covered. The description adds that it works from a partial input and returns candidate complete addresses, but says nothing about result count, ranking, or geographic scope.

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?

One compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is redundant, though it could be marginally tighter.

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 single-parameter, read-only, open-world lookup with no output schema, the description plus annotations give an agent enough to call it correctly. The only gap is any detail about the shape/number of suggestions returned.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Debut d adresse, nom d hotel, de gare ou d aeroport'). The description only restates that it is a partial input, adding no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 (propose/suggests) and resource (complete addresses) with the scope of input (a partial entry). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (calculer_prix, reserver, lister_vehicules), though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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 clause 'pour confirmer l adresse exacte avec le client' implies the usage context (resolving/confirming an address during a booking flow), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or reference to an alternative tool.

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