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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds behavioral context: long texts are truncated to 4000 characters unless full=true. This is useful but not extensive; no contradictions 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?

Description is concise: two sentences plus an example. It front-loads the list of output fields, then states the truncation rule, then gives an illustrative example. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must clarify return values. It does: lists all included fields (title, level, status, etc.) and notes truncation behavior. For a two-parameter tool, this is complete and sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters described). The description adds meaning by explaining the effect of the full parameter on truncation behavior, which is not in the schema. For the numero parameter, the schema already provides thorough documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns a 'full structured sheet' for one RNCP or RS certification, listing specific fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_certifications (search) and compare_certifications (compare) by focusing on fetching a single certification's detailed sheet.

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 description provides an example use case in French, implying usage for retrieving a specific certification. However, it does not explicitly state when to this tool versus alternatives like search_certifications or compare_certifications, nor when not to use it.

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