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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses data sources (Alim'confiance, DGCCRF, seasonal patterns), the optional parameter that refines risk, and what the return includes. No contradictions. It could mention limitations like data timeliness or scope.

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 comprehensive but slightly verbose with dual-language paragraphs. It front-loads the purpose and then provides details. Every sentence adds information, but could be tightened to reduce redundancy between French and English.

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 fully explains the return: risk score, high-risk months, average inspection frequency, and recommendations. For a tool with 3 parameters (2 required) and clear domain, this is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 value by explaining how `dernier_controle_ddpp` refines the risk score and probability, which is beyond the schema's type/required info. It also lists valid values for `type_etablissement` in the description, partially duplicating 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 clearly states the tool returns an estimated DDPP inspection risk level for a specific establishment type in a French department, using a specific verb 'Retourne' and specifying the resource (risk level). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on risk estimation rather than other food safety aspects.

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 provides usage context: designed for automation, can be called quarterly. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it contrasts with sibling tools like `get_score_alimconfiance` or `get_calendrier_obligations`. The recommended call frequency is helpful.

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