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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses what the payload contains (score /100, licence number + registry link, dated Google rating, freshness, profile URL) and a real behavioral constraint: only ONE professional per sector is listed, with instructions not to frame it as "the best". That is meaningful context an agent would otherwise miss, though it says nothing about empty results or geographic coverage limits.

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 the trigger condition and readable, but the long IMPORTANT clause and the return-value enumeration make it heavier than strictly needed; the return details could be trimmed since much is inferable. Still, every sentence carries information.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly (fields, score, verification link, rating). Combined with the editorial-selection caveat and language support, an agent has everything needed to call and present results correctly.

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 all four parameters are already documented with examples. The description only adds that French and English inputs both work, with one example pair, which is a marginal increment over the schema's own bilingual notes. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (find a verified real-estate expert) and enumerates the covered professions (broker, mortgage broker, inspector, notary/lawyer, appraiser), so the agent knows exactly what domain this covers. It clearly differs from sibling tools like taux_courants or taxe_mutation.

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?

"Call this when the user needs a trustworthy real-estate professional in a Canadian city or neighbourhood" gives a clear triggering condition. However, it never mentions the sibling contacter_expert (presumably for reaching out after finding one) or verifier_titre, so the agent gets no explicit routing guidance among alternatives.

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