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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real scope context beyond them: it clarifies the data is 'approved and published' institutional info, notes that the actually-available language is surfaced in results, and explicitly excludes statistics, registration data, and private information. That exclusion list is genuinely useful in bounding expectations.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler, and the content scope is front-loaded. However, leading with a noun phrase rather than an action statement is a structural weakness for a search tool.

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 4-parameter search tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is materially incomplete: it explains the data scope well but omits how to invoke the tool (what query/insee_code do, and the limit constraint). An agent cannot confidently construct a call from the description alone.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only hints at the 'langue' parameter by listing the six languages. It says nothing about 'query' (the search term), 'insee_code' (the 5-char code pattern), or 'limit' (default 10, max 20). Three of four parameters are undocumented in both schema and 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 never states an action (no verb like 'search' or 'find') and instead only describes the data domain: 'Informations institutionnelles approuvées et publiées.' The name/title carries the actual purpose, so an agent must infer 'search local authorities' from the tool name rather than the description. This is a vague, content-focused purpose rather than a clear verb+resource statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like rechercher_etablissements, rechercher_lieux, or rechercher_contenus_publics. No prerequisites, no alternatives, and no exclusions are stated. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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