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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or potential side effects. However, it does describe the output content (common base + specific documents) and filtering logic, which is moderately transparent for a read-only lookup tool.

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 presented in two languages (French and English), which is useful for a bilingual context. The key information is front-loaded. Minor repetition between languages could be streamlined, but overall it is concise and well-structured.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, filtering behavior, and output content adequately. It lacks information about data freshness or source, but this is not critical for a reference document list. The tool is simple enough that the description feels complete.

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?

The single parameter 'type_etablissement' is fully covered in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds significant value by explaining the outcome of providing vs. omitting the parameter, listing valid values, and clarifying that the result includes common plus specific documents when filtered. This goes well beyond the schema's basic description.

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 the tool returns a list of documents requested by French DDPP inspectors during sanitary inspections, by establishment type. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_guide_bonnes_pratiques_secteur or get_plan_nettoyage_type, which focus on specific guidance or plans.

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 implies usage context (DDPP inspections, France) and mentions optional filtering by type_etablissement. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use this tool. Given the variety of sibling tools, some guidance on when to choose this over related tools (e.g., get_guide_bonnes_pratiques_secteur) would improve clarity.

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