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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: no personal data is stored, inputs are restricted to closed lists, no free text or identity is accepted, and France Care aggregates reports by territory. These are useful operational details that annotations alone do not convey.

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 sentences cover what the tool does, when to use it, and key input constraints. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 record-type tool with three fully documented required parameters and no output schema, the description gives sufficient context: purpose, usage trigger, privacy behavior, and aggregation. It does not describe the response format, but that gap is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 commune, profession, and manque fully. The description reinforces that values come from closed lists and that no free text is allowed, but it does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Enregistre') and a clear resource ('qu'une personne n'a pas trouve de soignant pour un besoin donne dans sa commune'). It clearly distinguishes this reporting tool from the analysis/search siblings by focusing on recording a signalement rather than analyzing or searching.

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 when to use it: 'A utiliser quand la personne demande a signaler ce manque ou l'accepte.' It provides clear context for invocation, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion conditions relative to sibling tools.

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