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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the returned data in detail but does not mention that this is a read-only operation without side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. While safe to assume, the lack of explicit transparency for a read tool is a moderate gap.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes both French and English versions, which is helpful. It is readable and contains necessary details, though some repetition exists (e.g., 'the field notes it explicitly' could be removed). Overall, it is efficient given the depth of information.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains all returned fields (title, editor, year, price, pages, link, key points, regulatory links) and how missing guides are handled. For a single-parameter tool, this is highly complete and leaves no ambiguity about the response.

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% with the parameter description already listing allowed values. The main description adds context about sectors and missing guides but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not degrade but adds little new parameter-specific value.

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 tool returns the official Good Hygiene Practice Guide reference for a French food-trade sector, listing all details provided (title, editor, year, etc.). The verb 'Retourne la référence' and resource 'GBPH' make the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools focused on HACCP, temperatures, etc.

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 by specifying what it returns and mentions sectors with no distinct validated guide (bakery, cheese, caterer) being flagged. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions. The context of siblings suggests it's for obtaining official references, but exclusions are absent.

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