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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: it is public open data, contains no credit score, and costs $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 with failed calls uncharged — important for an agent deciding whether to incur cost. Pagination/return-shape detail is missing, keeping it below a 5.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by the pricing disclosure. No filler, though the field list (date, court, register number, URL) partially duplicates what the output schema already provides.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and safety is covered by annotations. Combined with the pricing note and scope caveat, the description covers what an agent needs to call it, with only minor gaps around freshness/latency of 'latest' notices.

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 both q (2-60 char free text over company name/town/court) and limit (1-25, default 10) are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the text filter and adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond it, 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 resource (France BODACC commercial announcements / official gazette open data) and the action (return latest notices, optionally text-filtered). It does not name or contrast with any sibling tool, so an agent cannot distinguish it from the many other registry/gazette tools by the description alone, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

'Latest notices, optionally filtered by text' implies when to use it, and 'announcements only, no credit score' sets a scope boundary. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to an alternative sibling for related lookups, leaving routing to inference.

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