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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds domain scope but nothing beyond annotations about result handling, ranking, or limits beyond the max-200 figure already in the schema.

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?

Front-loaded domain statement followed by a concrete example and a compact Args block; nearly every line earns its place. Minor redundancy in restating schema parameter text verbatim in the Args section.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description only needs to establish scope and query semantics, which it does. The main residual gap is the absence of guidance on how category/source relate to the returned directory structure, though that is partly left to the output schema.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters, and the Args block largely restates them. The worked query example with the OR operator is a modest value-add, but nothing compensates for or exceeds the schema's own 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?

The description names the specific resource domain — French public addresses and contacts (courts, greffes, town halls, CCAS, prefectures) — which clearly separates it from siblings like search_case_law, search_doctrine, or search_decisions_citing. It does not, however, frame the action explicitly or contrast itself with the generic `search` sibling, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is conveyed only by example ("tribunal judiciaire Dunkerque") and by the enumerated categories of offices; there is no statement of when to prefer this over `search`/`resolve_reference` or what the tool does not cover. The example implies context but leaves selection to inference.

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