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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: only 'vérifiées' offers are returned, and each result carries the code, both parties' benefits, verification date and source URL. Pagination/result-size behavior is not addressed, keeping it below 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the first front-loads what is searched and where, the second enumerates the returned fields. Every clause earns its place, especially the return-field sentence given the absence of an output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers return values, and annotations plus a 100%-covered schema handle safety and inputs. Remaining gaps are minor: result-count behavior, matching strictness, and how results relate to the sibling browsing/comparison tools.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the 1-20 range and 10 default for 'limite'. The description restates the 'requete' semantics (brand name or keyword) but adds no syntax, matching behavior, or multi-term guidance 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 (Recherche) and resource (offres de parrainage vérifiées within the Meilleur Code Parrainage directory) plus the query modality (nom de marque ou mot-clé). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as comparer_offres or offres_par_categorie, which also surface offers.

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 phrase 'par nom de marque ou mot-clé' implies when the tool is appropriate (keyword/brand lookup), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no pointer to comparer_offres, detail_offre, meilleures_offres or offres_par_categorie for the browsing/comparison cases.

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