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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note — that verification dates and status reflect checks actually performed — which is data-interpretation context beyond the 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?

Two short sentences with no padding, so it is not bloated. But the brevity comes at the cost of substance, and the second sentence is about result interpretation rather than front-loading what the tool searches.

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?

A 5-parameter search tool with zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no parameter guidance in the description. The agent knows it reads public records but not what can be queried, filtered, or returned — a significant completeness gap for a search entry point.

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% across 5 parameters (limit, query, langue, commune, categorie), and the description mentions none of them. The only enum and all filtering dimensions are left entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for a total coverage gap.

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?

States a verb ("Recherche") and a resource ("fiches publiques NLocale"), so the basic action is clear. But it never says what an "établissement" is or what distinguishes this from siblings like rechercher_lieux or rechercher_collectivites, leaving the agent unable to tell which search tool applies.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance at all. The second sentence addresses data semantics (verification dates/status) rather than selection criteria, so the agent gets no routing help among the nine sibling search tools.

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