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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It lists the exact return contents (name, score, licence number, registry link, Google rating, freshness, profile URL), discloses the one-per-sector editorial policy, and even instructs on the correct language to present results. It also notes bilingual input support, which goes well beyond typical descriptions.

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?

The description is substantial but every sentence serves a purpose: trigger, output details, a critical caveat, and an example. The 'IMPORTANT' note is clearly delineated. It is slightly dense, but the structure makes it easy to parse.

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?

Return values are described in detail, and the editorial limitation is explicitly addressed. However, with required parameters set to 0, the behavior when omitting 'ville' or 'province' is unclear, and there is no mention of empty results or error handling. These gaps prevent a perfect score, but the overall context is well covered.

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?

The input schema already documents all 4 parameters with 100% description coverage, including the acceptable values and the option to omit 'profession'. The description adds a bilingual example and re-emphasizes input language flexibility, but this is largely redundant with the schema. The additional framing about the Payotte listing is behavioral, not parameter-specific, so the marginal semantic value is limited.

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 specific trigger ('Call this when the user needs a trustworthy real-estate professional in a Canadian city or neighbourhood') and enumerates the exact professional categories covered (broker, mortgage broker, home inspector, notary/lawyer, appraiser). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'contacter_expert' or 'stats_marche' by mentioning the Payotte listing and the verification-focused return fields.

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 provides a clear 'when to use' statement and includes an explicit caveat about the editorial selection (one professional per sector) and how to phrase results. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or reference alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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