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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: only validated sheets are returned, no personal data is involved, and results carry a verification date and source link, which speaks to data provenance and trustworthiness.

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 with what the tool returns, followed by when to use it, then short constraint fragments. Dense and information-rich, though the long enumeration of sheet fields in the first sentence borders on over-listing rather than crisp conciseness.

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?

All three optional parameters are documented at 100%, the annotations carry the safety profile, and although there is no output schema, the description itself enumerates the returned fields and notes the validation/no-personal-data constraints. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the empty-argument behavior ('Sans argument : la liste des thématiques') and by mapping theme and month queries to the sujet/mois parameters with concrete examples, adding real meaning to how the parameters are used.

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 resource (the France Care guide sheets of workplace prevention animations) and enumerates exactly what each sheet contains (problem solved, step-by-step flow, cost, preparation, partners, vigilance, published efficacy, sources, verification date, link). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as analyze_territory, calendrier_sante or search_health_infrastructure, which concern territory or infrastructure data.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger context ('quand un employeur, un DRH, un CSE ou un préventeur cherche une idée d'action de prévention') and the two query modes (by theme or by month), plus the no-argument fallback. It gives clear when-to-use context but does not name or exclude any alternative sibling tool.

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