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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds significant behavioral logic: it clarifies that habilitation is effective only if the certification is active AND the partner state is 'Actif', and describes role detection and certifier detection. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: a direct question, two additional clarifying sentences (certifier detection and validity condition), and a concrete example. No filler, every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core query, special cases, and validity conditions, making it complete for a simple lookup tool. It doesn't describe the return format, but the question 'is... habilitated... and for which role' implies the output; with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the agent needs to know.

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 both parameters. The description reinforces the SIREN/SIRET distinction (SIREN matches all establishments) and provides a realistic example with formatted inputs, adding helpful context beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states what the tool does: checks if a SIRET/SIREN is habilitated for a certification and identifies the role (former, evaluer, or both). It also distinguishes itself by detecting when the SIRET is the certifier itself, setting it apart from sibling tools like check_validity or get_certification.

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 purpose is evident from the description, and the example provides a concrete use case. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or comparison to sibling tools.

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