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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial extra context: what the response contains (interlocutors with roles, dated Légifrance links, official fiches, verbatim deadlines, FINESS coordinates), how to consume it (refer to a_lire_d_abord, cite each deadline with article and verification block), and how to invoke it (choose a besoin, call argument-free for the list). The privacy constraint is an important behavioral disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the actionable instructions (privacy rule, use the fiches, cite deadlines) all earn their place. The long parenthetical enumeration of interlocutors makes the middle dense and run-on, but it conveys genuine scope rather than 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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned and how to use it, plus invocation rules and privacy constraints. Nothing an agent needs to call and correctly apply this tool 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented structurally. The description adds usage meaning beyond the schema: 'Choisir le besoin dans la liste (appeler sans argument pour la description de chacun)' explains the no-argument behavior and the enum's purpose, and the lieu handling is reinforced as optional context for local coordinates and ARS.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource statement: who to contact, in what order, and on what legal text, for health/disability/loss-of-autonomy procedures in France. It enumerates the specific interlocutors (DAC, MDPH, ARS, juge, etc.) and the assets returned (roles, dated Légifrance texts, service-public.fr fiches, deadlines, FINESS coordinates), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like signaler_besoin_non_couvert.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions ('quand une personne, un aidant ou un professionnel ne sait pas à qui s'adresser, veut contester une décision ou faire une réclamation, ou prépare un courrier'), which is clear when-to-use guidance. It also states a hard privacy exclusion (never transmit the person's situation, name or health status), though it does not name sibling alternatives to route away to.

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