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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the output format (order and wording for EDOF) and the special case for RS certifications. However, it does not disclose behavior for invalid inputs, non-existent certifications, or edge cases like empty results. The added context is useful but not rich enough to warrant a higher score.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an example in parentheses. It front-loads the key information (what the tool returns, the ordering, and the RS exception). Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. The structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and annotations cover safety. The description explains the output components and ordering, but does not specify the exact return structure (e.g., array of objects, pagination, error handling). It also leaves ambiguity about what happens when an RS certification number is provided (returns empty list? error?). While adequate for a simple list tool, the missing output schema and lack of explicit error behavior make it minimally complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'numero' already documented with formats (RNCP, RS, etc.). The tool description adds context about the tool's purpose (RNCP vs RS) but does not add new meaning about the parameter itself beyond what the schema provides. According to the scoring guidelines, when schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not sufficiently elevate it.

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 the tool lists 'blocs de compétences' for an RNCP certification, including the components (code, title, skills, assessment methods) and the specific ordering for EDOF forms. It distinguishes from RS certifications by noting they have no blocs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_certification', which might also return bloc information, so clarity is high but not full.

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 implies when to use: for RNCP certifications where blocs are needed in EDOF order. It explicitly excludes RS certifications ('RS certifications have no blocs'), giving a clear negative case. However, it does not mention alternatives (e.g., when to use get_certification instead) or provide guidance on when not to use this tool beyond the RS exclusion. The usage context is implied, not fully articulated.

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