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

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the return shape ('a page of activities with code, labels and domain; meta.total is the number of matches'). Annotations already cover read-only and closed-world safety, so the added return/pagination context is the valuable contribution; it stops short of describing error behavior or rate 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?

Three tight sentences: what it searches, what it is used for, and what it returns. No filler, and the identifying scope leads the description.

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 six-parameter paginated search with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value and pagination signal (page contents, meta.total), and the schema covers all inputs, including the country_not_available error path. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 every parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including search semantics, language, paging and the country fallback. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond restating the return fields, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Search the official ANAE nomenclature... list of activities that the ANAE opens to the auto-entrepreneur status in Algeria') and names the concrete outcome, finding a six-digit code. It is clearly distinguishable from the generic sibling search_activity_codes, though it never explicitly names a sibling to route against (get_anae_activity).

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 gives an explicit use case: 'check whether an activity can be practised as an auto-entrepreneur and to find its six-digit code.' That is clear context for selection, but there is no when-not guidance and no explicit pointer to alternatives such as get_anae_activity or search_activity_codes.

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