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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description need not repeat those. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema: results are ordered 'most recently published notices first,' and free text searches across the whole notice rather than just the name. It does not mention potential rate limits or error handling, but for a read-only search tool this is adequate.

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 well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, lists search criteria and output shape, then provides usage guidance and the q-vs-name clarification. Every sentence carries useful information; there is no fluff. It is a bit long but each part earns its place.

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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: it explains the scope of free-text search, the result ordering, the output fields, and when to prefer an alternative sibling. It does not detail pagination behavior beyond what the schema's offset/limit descriptions already state, nor does it cover edge cases like empty results, but the core usage is fully specified.

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 the schema already documents every parameter. The description reinforces the distinction between `q` (whole-notice) and `name` (name-only) and provides English aliases for event_type, but these are also present in the schema's own parameter descriptions. It adds marginal value over the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Search') and a precise resource ('all BODACC notices across every French company'), then lists the full set of search criteria (free text, event family, département, date range) and the output shape (SIREN, company name, event family, court, location, notice detail). It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling bodacc_company_events, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use for open-ended discovery' and contrasts with 'use bodacc_company_events instead when you already have a SIREN or exact name.' It also clarifies when to prefer `name` over `q` for name-only matching. This is clear, actionable routing.

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