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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: it enumerates what the call returns (regulator, public registry URL when one exists, and the credential classification), which matters because no output schema exists. It could still say more about the four credential categories or missing-data behavior.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the first is the trigger condition, the second is the return contract. Front-loaded with the when-to-call clause, exactly what an agent scans first.

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 compensates by describing the returned fields (regulator, registry URL, credential type) and the conditional nature of the URL. Combined with read-only annotations and fully documented parameters, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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 description coverage is 100%: the schema already documents that 'province' may be omitted to broaden results and lists the accepted 'profession' values. The description adds no format, casing, or fallback guidance for either parameter, so the 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 (verify) and resource (a professional title / its regulator), plus the exact question it answers: is this profession regulated, by which body, and where to verify a licence. None of the sibling tools (taux_courants, salaire_requis, trouver_expert, etc.) overlap with this regulatory-verification purpose, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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 opening clause 'Call this when the user wants to know whether a real-estate profession is regulated...' gives an explicit trigger condition an agent can match against user intent. It does not name exclusions or contrasting siblings, but the sibling set is in clearly different domains, so no real ambiguity remains.

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