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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds substantive context beyond them: exactly one firm is returned, results are scored /100 on a public grid, and the empty case returns 'caseVacante'. The presentation constraints ('never as the best', 'never as verified by Payotte') are unusual but genuinely useful behavioral guidance for how to relay the answer.

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 'FRANCE' and the core verb, then the métier list and return payload. Dense but every clause carries information; the presentation rules are wordy but are the tool's distinguishing contract, not filler. Slightly long for a single-result lookup.

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 return-value burden and does so: address, contact as shown on payotte.com/france, profile link, a /100 score, and the caseVacante empty state. Missing only pagination/multi-result behavior, which is moot for a single-firm lookup. Complete enough for correct invocation and correct relay of the result.

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 ville, metier and secteur, including the arrondissement formats ('11e', '75011') and the fact that secteur is useless outside Paris/Lyon/Marseille. The description only echoes city/arrondissement scoping and adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema. 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 and resource ('Returns the ONE firm Payotte selected for a trade in a French city or arrondissement') and immediately enumerates the five covered métiers (agent immobilier, courtier en crédit, notaire, diagnostiqueur, géomètre-expert). The 'FRANCE' prefix and the geo-specific parameters distinguish it from the country-scoped siblings (check_professional_uk, check_professional_au, etc.).

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 'FRANCE' opener and 'secteur ... inutile ailleurs' imply the geographic and municipal scope, so an agent can infer when this tool applies. However, no sibling is named as an alternative (trouver_expert, contacter_expert, check_professional_* for other countries), and there is no explicit when-not guidance. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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