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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: exhaustive coverage, 51 instances broken down by type, the JADE-bulk-only caveat for TC and CDBF, and accepted name formats. This goes well beyond the structured 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 compact, front-loaded with the main output, and every sentence earns its place: scope, contents, consumer tools, and special cases. No filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers scope, counts, exclusions, aliases, and downstream consumers. Nothing an agent needs to decide to call it is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. The schema already covers everything.

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 states a specific action ('Restitue les 51 instances couvertes') and a precise resource (exhaustive jurisdictional codes), distinguishing it from sibling search/get tools by explicitly naming which tools consume those codes. It is more than a restatement of the name and title.

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 clearly conveys the tool's role as a source of valid jurisdictional vocabulary for `search_admin`, `get_admin_decision`, and `search_admin_recent`, and notes that full names and short forms are also accepted. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is strong.

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