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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose content boundaries (no individual CADA opinions, no unverified municipal linkage), which is meaningful behavioral context, but it says nothing about response shape, whether some guides may be missing, or any permission/rate considerations.

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 compact sentences: the resource and its coverage come first, followed by the exclusion constraints. No filler, though the exclusion sentence is somewhat terse and would benefit from naming an alternative.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool is and its content limits, but an agent still lacks any sense of what a returned guide looks like or how topics map to outputs. Adequate but with a clear remaining gap.

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 baseline is 3, but the description's parenthetical enumeration of the eight topics effectively maps to the valid topic_slug values and reinforces that commune_code is purely contextual ('sans rattachement communal non vérifié'), adding meaning beyond the schema's own field text.

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 names a concrete resource — official guides for requesting administrative documents — and enumerates the covered topics (budgets, délibérations, marchés, frais des élus, urbanisme, subventions, environnement, refus). It also carves out what the tool is not (no individual CADA opinions, no unverified commune attribution), which helps separate it from the territorial siblings like get_commune. The only weakness is that the verb is implicit ('guides officiels' rather than 'returns guides').

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?

Usage is implied through the topic list and the two exclusions, which tell the agent this is not the place for a specific CADA ruling or unverified commune-level attribution. However, no sibling or alternative is named for the excluded cases, so the agent must infer where to route those queries instead.

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