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

The description discloses that the search uses BM25 + French synonyms, which adds value beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. It mentions that RS entries have no level and that results include status and expiry date. 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?

The description is concise: three sentences covering purpose, filters, and what is returned. It front-loads the core action and ends with a helpful example. No superfluous information.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: search algorithm, registers, filters, example query, and what the return includes (ranked matches, status, expiry). It also clarifies nuances like RS having no level. This is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 high (86%), and the description provides additional context by stating filter capabilities and an example French query. It clarifies that niveau only applies to RNCP and that limit has a default of 10. This adds meaning beyond the raw 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 the tool performs full-text search over RNCP and RS certification registers, using verbs like 'search' and 'filter'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool get_certification by noting that tool is for details. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage context by stating it searches over both registers and can filter by register, level, NSF or ROME code. It explicitly mentions using get_certification for details, giving clear guidance on when to switch to a sibling. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios like checking validity or comparing certifications, which are handled by other siblings.

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