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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds a conceptual scope constraint (documentary verification is not a visit) but nothing about result format, ranking, or limits. Adds modest value beyond 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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The brevity is genuine conciseness rather than the padding seen in bloated definitions, though it borders on being too terse to be useful.

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 search tool with 5 optional filtering parameters and no output schema, the description is far too thin: it never explains what the search returns, how filters combine, or how many results to expect. Annotations cover safety, but the functional gaps remain large.

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 (query, limit, langue, commune, categorie), and the description mentions none of them. Only the enum/default/min-max constraints in the schema offer indirect hints. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 identifies the resource domain ('patrimoine et lieux') but never states the verb of search explicitly, even though the name is 'rechercher_lieux' and the title says 'Rechercher des lieux documentés'. It also does not clearly distinguish this resource from siblings like rechercher_etablissements or rechercher_evenements. Purpose is inferable but only vaguely stated.

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 only guidance is a scope note ('une vérification documentaire ne constitue pas une visite'), which hints at what counts as a documented place but gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives among the many sibling search tools. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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