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

No annotations exist. The description states it searches but does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the search is full-text or exact match. Important behavioral traits are missing.

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?

A single sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though very brief.

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, 0% parameter coverage, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not mention the format or structure of results, pagination, or any constraints beyond the search fields. Given the tool's complexity (listing feature collections), more details are needed.

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 0%. The description mentions searching by title, description, or keyword, but the schema only has 'query' and 'limit' parameters. There is no explicit mapping of 'query' to the search fields, nor explanation of 'limit' (e.g., max results). The description adds some context but falls short given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action (Search) and resource (official Geoportail OGC feature collections) and the search fields (title, description, or keyword). It is distinguishable from siblings like 'get_geo_features' and 'search_transit_stops' due to the specific resource mentioned, but does not explicitly differentiate from other list/search tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context on prerequisites, when not to use, or typical use cases provided.

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