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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the accepted input formats and the exact-2 constraint, which is useful but not deep behavioral context.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the verb+resource leads and format details follow. The final sentence partly restates the schema's min/maxItems constraint, a minor redundancy.

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 simple, read-only, single-parameter comparison tool with no output schema, the definition covers inputs and scope adequately. It stops short of hinting at what the comparison returns (metrics/fields), but annotations cover the safety dimension.

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 100% with a single documented array parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description reinforces the format and supplies a concrete example ('insee:77186') but adds little beyond the schema's own parameter description.

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 (Compare) and resource (acces aux soins entre 2 territoires francais), making the pairwise scope explicit. It is implicitly distinguishable from the singular analyze_territory sibling via 'entre 2 territoires', but never names the alternative directly.

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 'exactly 2 territories' constraint implies when to use this rather than the single-territory analyze_territory, but the description never states the when/when-not or names the alternative. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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