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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context: it's an aggregator with parallel sub-calls, returns LookupResult with sections, handles truncation for professionals (not count), and describes edge cases (missing FINESS, unavailable historique). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is relatively long but well-structured with sections and bullet points. It includes examples and explicit guidance. While not extremely concise, every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's complexity (aggregator with multiple sub-calls, optional parameters, edge cases) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers return format, failure modes, performance considerations, and aliases. It leaves no critical gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value: explains that rpps_limit is a sample (not total count) with truncated flag, that historique_detail reduces payload by ~7K tokens, and mentions aliases for num_finess. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states it provides a '360 view of a health establishment in 1 call' and aggregates four types of data (identification, administrative status, professionals, history). It distinguishes from siblings by noting it replaces three individual tools (verifier_site_actif, rpps_dans_etablissement, historique_etablissement) with a single call.

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 description clearly states when to use (prospection, audit territorial, CRM enrichment) and when not (for specific needs like just verdict or history, prefer individual tools). It also provides guidance on payload weight and suggests setting historique_detail=false for batch usage.

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